Disposed¶17

Murad Ahamad @ Ruhel and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Nov 2025NA528/45090/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing application under S.528 BNSS; Criminal Complaint Case No. 703 of 2004 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC; disputed questions of fact; failure of justice or abuse of procedure; discharge application to be decided within six weeks by reasoned and speaking order; no coercive measures / NBW stay; warrant case instituted on private complaint; Murad Ahamad @ Ruhel; Farzana Khatoon; State of U.P.; Maharajganj; Nautanwa police station.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of; prayer for quashing declined; applicants permitted to move a discharge application, to be decided by the Trial Court by a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks after hearing both parties; no coercive measures against the applicants till disposal of the discharge application. ¶17

Murad Ahamad @ Ruhel and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the Criminal Complaint Case No. 703 of 2004 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, the summoning order dated 17.04.2004 and the NBW order dated 20.5.2024 ought to be quashed under Section 528 BNSS.

¶9

Court's answer

From the material on record, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants; the submissions relate to disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated by this Court.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The quashing power may be exercised only in cases where the Court finds failure of justice or abuse of procedure, to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

¶10

Key takeaways

The prayer for quashing the complaint case and the summoning and NBW orders is declined.ratio¶11
If the applicants move a discharge application through counsel at an appropriate stage, the Trial Court shall dispose of it in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to both parties, by a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks from the date of the application, if there is no other legal impediment.ratio¶15
Till the disposal of the discharge application, no coercive measures shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Nand Prabha Shukla, J.) disposed of an application under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of Criminal Complaint Case No. 703 of 2004 (Farzana Khatoon Vs. Murad Ahamad and others) under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, along with the summoning order dated 17.04.2004 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj, and the NBW order dated 20.5.2024 of the Judicial Magistrate. Observing that the matter involved disputed questions of fact which could not be adjudicated by the High Court, and that the quashing power may be exercised only where there is failure of justice or abuse of procedure, the Court declined the prayer for quashing. As the matter was a warrant case instituted on private complaint, the Trial Court was directed to dispose of any discharge application moved by the applicants, after hearing both sides, by a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks, and until such disposal no coercive measures were to be taken against the applicants.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 45090 of 2025

¶3

Murad Ahamad @ Ruhel And 3 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Ratnesh Kumar Pandey, Vinod Kumar : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 80

¶7

HON'BLE NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶9

The present application under section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed with a prayer to allow this application and to quash/set aside the Criminal Complaint Case No. 703 of 2004, (UPM2104000/022004) (Farzana Khatoon Vs. Murad Ahamad and others), under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Nautanwa, Maharajganj, pending in the Court of the Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C.-1, Maharajganj, order dated 17.04.2004 passed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj, in aforesaid case summoning the applicants to face trial under aforesaid provisions of the I.P.C. and order dated 20.5.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Maharajghanj issuing NBW against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

¶10

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court. Only in cases where the Court finds that there has been failure of justice or abuse of procedure, this power may be exercised to prevent the abuse of process to secure the ends of justice.

¶11

Accordingly, prayer for quashing is declined.

¶12

However, in the interest of justice as the matter pertains to warrant case instituted on private complainant, it is provided that in case the applicants move an application for discharge through counsel at an appropriate stage, the same shall be disposed of by the Trial Court in accordance with law after

¶13

NA528 No. 45090 of 2025

¶14

¶15

giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties by a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks from the date of the application, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶16

Till the disposal of the discharge application, no coercive measures shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

¶17

With the aforesaid direction, this application is disposed of.

¶18

November 17, 2025 Puspendra

¶19

(Nand Prabha Shukla,J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- PUSPENDRA NARAYAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Murad Ahamad @ Ruhel and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murad Ahamad @ Ruhel and 3 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhanu Pratap Singh Alias Beenu and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Shahanshah Alam and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Jawahir Lal Sharma Alias Jawahir and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Brijesh Kumar Pandey and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Ibrahim and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another