Disposed¶26

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

Allahabad HC21 Nov 2025NA528/33026/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of charge-framing order; Section 528 BNSS application; prima facie opinion at cognizance stage; no mini trial; sufficient ground for proceeding vs conviction; S.W. Palanitkar (2002) 1 SCC 241; Nupur Talwar (2012) 11 SCC 465; Kailash MUA No. 3254 of 2024; Session Trial No.203 of 2023; Case Crime No.152 of 2016; Sections 379/411/413/414 IPC; P.S. Kayamganj, District Farrukhabad; Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area); nine-year trial pendency; liberty to file discharge application; Allahabad High Court, Saurabh Srivastava, J., November 21, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash the charge-framing order and the entire trial proceedings refused; applicant granted liberty to avail all remedies available under law, including a discharge application raising the grounds taken in the present application. ¶26

Mohd. Tariq Khan Alias Azhar vs State of U.P. and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of framing charge dated 24.07.2023 and the entire proceedings of Session Trial No.203 of 2023 amount to an abuse of the process of law and should be quashed.

¶11

Court's answer

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.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

At the stage of taking cognizance, a court's primary focus is to determine whether a prima facie case exists, i.e., whether there is sufficient evidence to suggest that an offence has been committed, and not to delve into the merits of the case or the evidence.

¶17

Key takeaways

On perusal of the material on record (FIR narrations, chargesheet, statements recorded during investigation) and the facts of the case, no ground for interference is made out; the impugned order and the entire proceedings of the said case cannot be set aside.ratio¶19
Considering the pendency of the trial for more than nine years, the applicant is at liberty to avail all remedies available to him as per law.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Application u/s 528 BNSS challenging order of framing charge dated 24.07.2023 and entire proceedings of Session Trial No.203 of 2023 (State Vs. Vimal and others), arising out of Case Crime No.152 of 2016 under Sections 379, 411, 413, 414 IPC, P.S. Kayamganj, District Farrukhabad: prayer refused; application disposed of. Held: 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 examine the defence of the accused; the test is whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding, not for conviction (relying on S.W. Palanitkar, (2002) 1 SCC 241; Nupur Talwar, (2012) 11 SCC 465; and the recent Allahabad High Court decision in Kailash and another vs. State of U.P. and another, Matters under Article 227 no. 3254 of 2024, judgment dated 6.5.2024). No ground for interference found despite nine-year pendency; applicant (on bail, regularly attending trial) given liberty to pursue discharge application and other available remedies.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 33026 of 2025

¶3

Mohd. Tariq Khan Alias Azhar

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of U.P. and Another

¶7

	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Mushir Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 77

¶8

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for the Staterespondent.

¶10

The present application has been preferred challenging order of framing charge dated 24.07.2023 along with entire proceedings of Session Trial No.203 of 2023 (State Vs. Vimal and others), arising out of Case Crime No.152 of 2016, under Section 379, 411, 413, 414 IPC, P.S. Kayamganj, District Farrukhabad, pending before learned Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area)/ Additional District Judge, Court No.9, Farrukhabad.

¶11

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 considering the said facts, learned court concerned framed charges against applicants which is abuse of process of law and as such, same may be quashed.

¶12

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 is unable to go outside and earn his livelihood.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the

¶14

NA528 No. 33026 of 2025

¶15

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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) .

¶19

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 entire proceedings of the said case, can be set aside.

¶20

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

¶21

Lastly, learned counsel for applicant has submitted that liberty may be granted to applicant to prefer discharge application taking all the grounds

¶22

NA528 No. 33026 of 2025

¶23

¶24

raised herein through the instant application to which learned AGA has no objection.

¶25

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.

¶26

Accordingly, the instant application stands disposed of .

¶27

November 21, 2025 Vivek Kr.

¶28

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶29

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Tariq Khan Alias 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

Similar cases

Naresh Kumar Yadav and 11 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep Yadav and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Arif Ahmed and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmendra and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sabbu Alias Mohd Yusuf Khan 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pushpa Devi @ Anita @ Jiuti and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another