Mohd. Tariq Khan @ Azhar vs State of U.P. and Another

The present application has been preferred challenging chargesheet dated 16.08.2016 and summoning order dated 19.07.2016 along with entire proceedings of Session Trial/Case No.204 of 2023 (State Vs. Azhar and others), arising out of Case Crime No.154 of 2016, under Section 41, 102 Cr.P.C. and Section 379, 411, 413, 414 IPC, P.S. Kayamganj, District Farrukhabad, pending before learned Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Farrukhabad.

¶12

Learned counsel for applicants argued that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case by opposite party no.2 only to harass his since no offence as alleged, has ever been committed by him. It has also been argued by learned counsel for applicant that on date of alleged incident, applicant was doing journey to Ajmer and moreso, nothing was recovered from his possession. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that there is hardly any evidence against applicant to corroborate him with the alleged incident. It has also been argued by learned counsel for applicant that without conducting fair investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against applicant whereupon without applying its judicial mind, learned court concerned took cognizance of offence over the said chargesheet which is abuse of process of law and as such, same may be quashed.

¶13

Learned counsel for applicant also contended that although applicant is on bail and has been regularly appearing before learned trial court, the proceedings have remained pending for the last nine years due to which, he

¶14

NA528 No. 29874 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

is unable to go outside and earn his livelihood.

¶17

Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application by way of submitting that the contentions, which are sought to be raised on behalf of applicant, would relate to disputed questions of fact, and would involve appreciation of evidence. It is submitted that at the time of taking cognizance, only a prima facie case is to be seen and the court concerned is not expected to hold a mini trial.

¶18

After hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, this Court is of the opinion that at the stage of taking cognizance/summoning, the Magistrate is only required to record a prima facie opinion, based on the material on record, and is not expected to hold a mini trial or to examine the defence of the accused. In judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of S.W. Palanitkar and Others v. State of Bihar and Another; (2002) 1 SCC 241, it was held that the test which was required to be applied was whether there is "sufficient ground for proceeding" and not whether there is "sufficient ground for conviction". In the case of Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another; (2012) 11 SCC 465 , it was reiterated that the limited purpose of consideration of material at the stage of issuing process being tentative as distinguished from the actual evidence produced during trial, the test to be applied at the stage was whether the material placed before the Magistrate was "sufficient for proceeding against the accused" and not "sufficient to prove and establish the guilt". At the stage of taking cognizance, a court's primary focus is to determine if a prima facie case exists, meaning whether there is sufficient evidence to suggest that an offense has been committed, and not to delve into the merits of the case or the evidence.

¶19

The aforementioned legal position has also been considered in a recent decision of this Court in the judgment dated 6.5.2024 passed in Matters under Article 227 no. 3254 of 2024 (Kailash and another vs. State of U.P. and another) .

¶20

From perusal of the material available on record in shape of narrations made in the FIR, chargesheet, statement recorded during investigation and looking into the facts of the case, this Court does not find it to be a case where interference of this Court is required. No such ground appears to be available in the present application, on the basis of which, impugned order along with chargesheet and entire proceedings of the said case, can be set aside.

¶21

Accordingly, the prayer sought through the instant application, is hereby

¶22

NA528 No. 29874 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

refused.

¶25

Lastly, learned counsel for applicant has submitted that liberty may be granted to applicant to prefer discharge application taking all the grounds raised herein through the instant application to which learned AGA has no objection.

¶26

Considering the pendency of trial for last more than nine years, applicant will be at liberty to avail all the remedies which are available to him as per law.

¶27

Accordingly, the instant application stands disposed of .

¶28

November 21, 2025 Vivek Kr.

¶29

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶30

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

Mohd. Tariq Khan @ Azhar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Tariq Khan @ Azhar 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

Ranjana and Another vs State of Up and 3 Others

Smt. Shivani and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sikander and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ajay Kumar Jain vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Neha and Another vs State of Up and 3 Others

Smt Neha @ Sana Parveen and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others