Arif Hussain @ Sonu Arya vs State of U.P. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:33258 Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1480 of 2025 Appellant :- Arif Hussain @ Sonu Arya Respondent :- State Of U.P. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another

¶3

Counsel for Appellant :- Surya Kant Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

with

¶5

Criminal Appeal No.1603 of 2025 (Naem and another Vs. State of U.P. and another )

¶6

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Shubham Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Surya Kant Singh, learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A. G. A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Nishant Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2.

¶8

The short counter affidavit in Criminal Appeal No.1603 of 2025 is taken on record.

¶9

Present criminal appeals under Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, have been filed against common summoning order dated 26.03.2025, passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lucknow in Sessions Trial No. 481 of 2025 - State of U.P. Vs. Naeem and Others, arising out of Case Crime No. 478 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) of BNSS and Section 3(1)(da)(dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station - Sushant Golf City, District - Lucknow.

¶10

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that opposite party no. 2- complainant is wife of Arif Hussain @ Sonu Arya the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1480 of 2025, while in Criminal Appeal No. 1603 of 2025 appellant nos. 1 and 2 are brothers of appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1480 of 2025.

¶11

1

¶12

Since facts and order of the trial Court are same in both the aforesaid criminal appeals, consequently both the matters are being heard and decided together by this common judgment and order.

¶13

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that opposite party no. 2 was married to Arif Hussain (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1480 of 2025) on 24.01.2009 in Arya Samaj Temple at Lucknow and marriage was also registered on 26.02.2010. After marriage opposite party no. 2 started living with her husband Arif Husain at Lucknow in a rented accommodation. It is the case of opposite party no. 2 that she came to know Arif Husain some time prior to her marriage and intimacy was developed between them. She has stated that at that point of time Arif Husain introduced himself as Sonu Arya a Hindu by religion, which according to opposite party no. 2 was false. Opposite party has further stated that Arif Husain converted to Hinduism and thereafter married opposite party no. 2 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals. Both the parties continued to live together as husband and wife till some time in 2023, when certain matrimonial dispute erupted between them.

¶14

It is further case of opposite party no. 2 that she was forcibly converted to Islam and Arif Husain and opposite party no. 2 again performed Nikah according to Muslim rites and rituals on 05.05.2023. Subsequently, first information report was lodged against her husband (Arif Husain) and other family members, being FIR No. 478 of 2024, dated 09.09.2024, under Sections 70(1), 115(2), 352, 351(3) of BNSS and Section 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) and 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST Act at Police Station - Sushant Golf City, District - Lucknow.

¶15

During investigation, the parties had arrived at compromise and said compromise was also submitted to the Investigating Officer, but he still proceeded to file charge sheet in the Court, which before being filed before the Court was scrutinized by the Additional Commissioner of Police, who found infirmity in the said investigation. He was of the view that investigation was not conducted

¶16

2

¶17

properly. Ignoring the objections of the ACP, charge sheet was filed in the Court. On perusal of said charge sheet the trial Court has summoned the appellants by means of summoning order dated 26.03.2025. Against the summoning order present appeals have been filed.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that opposite party no. 2 and Arif Husain have lived together as husband and wife since 2009 till 2023, peacefully and there was no dispute between them. Subsequently, due to small domestic issue, opposite party no. 2 had left her matrimonial home on 09.09.2024 and started living in the house of her friend Sangeeta Gupta, whose husband is one Parmanand Gupta, an Advocate of this Court.

¶19

It has been submitted that Parmanand Gupta coerced opposite party no. 2 for filing false first information report against the appellants. The said Parmanand Gupta got few blank papers signed by opposite party no. 2 and did not even permit opposite party no. 2 to go through contents of the said papers and it is subsequently that opposite party no. 2 came to know that FIR has been lodged against her husband and other relatives.

¶20

During the investigation statement of the complainant – opposite party No. 2 was recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. by the police where she has narrated the entire events as told to her by the said Advocate and she was tutored to give the same statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr. P. C. and consequently she reiterated the same contents before the Magistrate. Statement under Section 164 Cr. P. C. was recorded on 20.9.2024. The complainant and Arif Husain resolved their dispute immediately thereafter on 21.9.2024 and she started to live at her matrimonial home and all the disputes stood resolved and the parties also filed a compromise deed before the investigating officer but the same was not considered by him and the charge sheet was filed in the court.

¶21

3

¶22

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the allegations leveled in the first information report are extremely serious and all the allegations are false, misconceived and motivated. The said allegations have been leveled at the behest of Sri Parmanand Gupta, Advocate of this Court and whose wife happens to be the friend of the complainant.

¶23

13.The Court had also scrutinized the conduct of Sri Parmanand Gupta in several other matters. Even in the charge sheet in the present case he is the only witness for the prosecution. The antecedents of this learned counsel are also well known and this Court itself has taken cognizance against him in several matters including in a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.1793 of 2025 passed on 5.3.2025 in which in para 5 the following cases are mentioned:-

¶24

"1. Complaint No.175 of 2025 ('X' vs. Priti Yadav and Others)

¶25

Complaint No.1871 of 24 ('X' vs. Kamlar Ali Warsi)

¶26

Compliant No.4400 of 24 ('X' vs. Ashish Soni and others)

¶27

Complaint No.2912 of 23 ('X' vs. Arvind Upadhyay)

¶28

Complaint No.852 of 23 ('X' vs. Vipin Yadav and Ors.)

¶29

Compliant No.160 of 23 ('X' vs. Vipin Yadav and others.)

¶30

Complaint No.780 of 20 ('X' vs. Dayashankar Srivastava)

¶31

Complaint No.1154 of 24 ('X' vs. Ram Lakhan and Others)

¶32

Complaint No.1460 of 24 ('X' vs. Ram Lakhan and Others)

¶33

Complaint No.6071 of 24 ('X' vs. Arvin and anther)

¶34

FIR No.0197 dated 10.05.2023 ('X' vs. Vipin Yadav and other)"

¶35

The CBI is also directed to included the present case in the investigation being conducted by them in

¶36

"1) Cri. Mis. Case No. 99326/24 (Parmanand Gupta Advocate vs. Subham Srivastava)

¶37

4

¶38

Cri. Mis. Case No. 92617/24 (Parmanand Gupta Advocate vs. Beena Gupta)

¶39

Cri. Mis. Case No.112872 of 2024 (Parmanand Gupta Advocate vs. Karmran Ali and another)

¶40

Cri Mis. Case No. of 2024 (Parmanand Gupta Advocate vs. Anju Gautam)

¶41

Cri. Mis. Case No. 92614/24 (Parmanand Gupta Advocate vs. Daya Shankar Yadav and others)

¶42

Cri. Mis. Case No. 3171 of 2021 (Parmanand Gupta vs. Santosh Singh)

¶43

Cri. Mis. Case No. 1418 of 2021 (Parmanand Gupta vs. Dhannjay Pandey and others)

¶44

Cri. Mis. Case No. 1302 of 2021 (Parmanand Gupta Advocate vs. Rachit Agarwal and others)

¶45

Cri. Mis. Case No. 5115 of 2020 (Parmanand Gupta Advocate vs. Jitendra Kumar and others)

¶46

Cri Mis. Case No. 6221 of 2020 (Parmanand Gupta Advocate vs.

¶47

R.P. Singh and others)

¶48

Cri. Mis. Case No. 5112 of 2020 (Parmanand Gupta Advocate vs. Jitendra Kumar Yadav and others)

¶49

Cri. Mis. Case No. 5112 of 2020 (Parmanand Gupta vs. Rama Shankar Yadav)

¶50

Cri. Mis. Case No. 2546/2019 (Parmanand Gupta Advocate vs. Kushal Kumar Tiwari and others)

¶51

FIR No. 0411 dated 17.05.2017 (Parmanand Gupta Advocate vs. Ram Shankar and others)

¶52

FIR No.0131 dated 25.02.2019 (Parmanand Gupta Advocate Vs. Ramu and others)

¶53

FIR No.0340 dated 23.09.2020 (Parmanand Gupta Advocate Vs. Anil Kumar another Others)

¶54

FIR No.0309 dated 22.9.2021 (Parmanand Gupta Advocate Vs. Rehan Sidhdhiki and others)

¶55

5

¶56

FIR No.0369 dated 19.06.2023 (Parmanand Gupta Advocate Vs. Rajnish Gupta and others)"

¶57

15.This Court has also found that Parmanand Gupta has lodged false FIR against number of persons for serious offence only to extract money from them. It is for the aforesaid allegations which persuaded us to look deeper into the present matter for which purposes the parties which are present in the Court were also asked to submit their responses to various queries which the Court had put to them, as such, the complainant who was present in the Court narrated the entire sequence of events and submitted that the FIR was lodged at the behest of Sri Parmanand Gupta and she was not even made to go through the contents nor was she aware of its contents till she was asked by the police to record her statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. and prior to recording of the said statement she was doctored by the counsel to narrate the same statement which was told by him.

¶58

The aspect as to whether where serious allegations are there an FIR can be quashed or not has been the subject matter of consideration by this court in number of cases. Deciding a similar matter, High Court of Delhi, in the case of Lalit Kumar Vats Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another (2020 SCC Online Del 1956) has held:- “10. As per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P arbat Bhai Aahir v. State of Gujrat, ((2017) 9 SCC 641 : AIR 2017 SC 4843) , the FIR should not be quashed in case of rape as it is an heinous offence, but when the respondent No. 2/complainant/prosecutrix herself takes the initiative and file affidavits before this Court, stating that she made the complaint due

¶59

to some misunderstanding and now wants to give quietus to the misunderstanding which arose between the petitioner and respondent no.

¶60

6

¶61

2, in my considered opinion, in such cases, there will be no purpose in continuing with the trial. Ultimately, if such direction is issued, the result will be of acquittal in favour of the accused, but substantial public time shall be wasted. 11. This Court is conscious about the dictum of the Supreme Court in terms of seriousness of the case, however, keeping in view the settlement arrived between the parties, this Court is inclined to quash the present FIR as no useful purpose would be served in prosecuting the petitioner any further.”

¶62

From the above, we find that it is a matrimonial dispute between the complainant and the appellant Arif Husain which led to filing of the said first information report. We further notice that the parties have lived together as husband and wife for more than 15 years and it is only in May, 2023 that the complainant lived separately for few days when the first information report was lodged. We also found suspicion with regard to the contents of the first information report which was doctored by the counsel who himself has been prima facie found to be involved in lodging numerous false first information reports.

¶63

Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, has also informed us, on the basis of instructions from the investigating officer that there is likelihood of falsity in the first information report lodged by the complainant.

¶64

In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter requires further investigation in view of the provisions of Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. which reads as under:-

¶65

Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer-in-charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or

¶66

7

¶67

reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2).

¶68

Considering the gravity of the offence and the nature of the allegations further investigation is directed to be conducted by a police officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police who shall conduct investigation expeditiously and file its report before the trial court. The proceedings before the trial court shall be kept in abeyance till fresh report is submitted in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court.

¶69

While investigating the matter, the investigating officer is directed to duly consider all the aspects of the matter including the compromise filed by the parties and the trial court shall thereafter proceed in accordance with law.

¶70

With aforesaid direction, both the appeals stand partly allowed.

¶71

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶72

Order dated: May 26, 2025 RKM.

¶73

8

¶74

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Arif Hussain @ Sonu Arya v. State of U.P. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

Arif Hussain @ Sonu Arya v. State of U.P. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Juvenile X Thru. Thru. His Father Y Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

X , Juvenile Delinquent in Case Crime No. 117/2024 ,Thru. His Father Xxx Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Vikash Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Amethi and Another

Divakar vs Vijay Pandey and Another

S (Juvenile) Thru. His Guardian/Elder Brother K vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Shiv Sagar @ Pujari and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another