Munnan Khan and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

By means of the instant application under Section 528 BNSS, the applicants have prayed for quashing of the entire proceeding of Case No.1843 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.196 of 2024, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 506, 354 (kha) and 324 I.P.C. as well as charge-sheet dated 27.06.2024 and cognizance order dated 12.12.2024.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the in the present case, an FIR was lodged by the informant against six accused persons on the basis of written report dated 22.05.2024, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 506 and 354 I.P.C. The allegation is that the accused persons, who are neighbors of the informant, had quarrel ' marpeet' with her brother-in-law (Dewar), Saleem along with accused persons, namely, Munnan Khan, Mohd. Arvaj and Intshar Khan. When her brother-in-law, Saleem had gone to the police station to lodge a complaint, in the meantime, the accused persons trespassed into her house, caught hold of both her hands, and accused Intshar Khan molested her. It is also alleged that accused Munnan Khan and Intshar Khan threatened her while leaving the place. He next submits that during investigation, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein she modified the version of the FIR and stated that the accused, namely Munnan Khan, Mohd. Arvaj, and Intshar Khan, had torn her clothes during the incident which took place on 22.05.2024 at around 11:30 p.m. She further stated that the accused persons had also assaulted her and her brother-in-law, Saleem, who had returned home from the police station at that time. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the

¶13

NA528 No. 21357 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

victim reiterated that the accused persons had assaulted her and her brotherin-law, and accused Munnan Khan, Mohd. Arvaj, and Intshar Khan had molested her and torn her clothes. However, the police submitted a chargesheet against accused Munnan Khan, Mohd. Arvaj Khan, and Intshar Khan under Sections 147, 452, 323, 506, 354B, and 324 IPC, and against accused Rukhsar Bi and Mohammad Bi, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 506, and 324 IPC.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the entire version of the FIR is false and concocted. The FIR has arisen out of a civil dispute between the parties and has been lodged only to create pressure on the accused side, who are plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 179 of 2024 ( Munnan Khan and another vs. Yameen Khan and another ). In the said suit, the husband and brother-in-law of the informant are defendants, and one of the witnesses, Saleem Khan, has filed a caveat therein. He next submits that no visible injury was found in the injury report of the informant/victim, whereas three visible injuries were detected on the person of witness Saleem Khan. The said injuries are simple in nature. He lastly submits that an interim order was passed to the effect that no coercive process shall be adopted against the applicants in the aforesaid case during investigation, in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9713 of 2024, vide order dated 05.06.2024, but the said interim protection was operative only up to the stage of filing of the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

¶17

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the aforesaid criminal case on the ground that a cognizable offence is made out in clear terms, and in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim and the witness Saleem have levelled specific allegations against the applicants.

¶18

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the law laid down on the subject by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and Ors vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , Inder Mohan Goswani & Another vs. State of Uttarnachal & Ors reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1 and Ramveer Upadhyay & Another vs. State of U.P. And Another reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 484 , this Court is of view that in the present case, a cognizable offence is made out against the applicants as well as evidence collected during investigation, no good ground has been shown to quash the impugned proceedings. The mere fact

¶19

NA528 No. 21357 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21

that a civil case is pending between some of the applicants and husband and brother-in-law of the informant cannot be taken as a ground to quash the criminal proceedings.

¶22

In view of above, it is provided that applicants permitted to move their discharge application within two months from today and in case any such application is being filed, same shall be heard and decided expeditiously after hearing the parties, in accordance with law, by means of a reasoned and speaking order.

¶23

Till the aforesaid period of two months and during pendency of discharge application, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

¶24

In case of failure on the part of applicants in moving the discharge application within the aforesaid period, they will not be entitled to the benefit of this order.

¶25

With above directions this application stands disposed of .

¶26

September 9, 2025 Amit

¶27

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶28

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Munnan Khan and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munnan Khan and 4 Others v. State of U.P. 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