Allowed

Mohd. Rizwan Qureshi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2025NA528/45849/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing application under Section 528 BNSS against prosecution for Sections 188 and 269 IPC and provisions of the Disaster Management and Epidemic Diseases Acts arising from an unauthorised road show. Cognizance on a police report was barred by Section 195 Cr.P.C.; the FIR alleged no spread of infection; and a Government Order directed withdrawal of such cases.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mohd. Rizwan Qureshi vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 45849 of 2025

¶3

Mohd. Rizwan Qureshi

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Shahabuddin
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 78

¶7

HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

¶8

Heard Sri Syed Mohammad Nawaj, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Shahabuddin, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Mohd. Afzal, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

Present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been preferred for quashing the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 1000 of 2022 (State vs. Rizwan Qureshi) arising out of chargesheet dated 23.4.2022 submitted in Case Crime No. 35 of 2022, under Sections 188 and 269 of I.P.C. and Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (in short "the Act, 2005") and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 (in short "the Act, 1897") , P.S. Mughalpura, District Moradabad, as well as cognizance and summoning order dated 13.7.2022, pending before the A.C.J.M., Court No. 5, Moradabad.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in view of the bar prescribed under Section 195 of Cr.P.C., the prosecution for the said offence is permissible only on a complaint in writing by the competent officer whose order could have been violated by a person. It is further submitted that the prosecution for offence under Section 188 of I.P.C. cannot be initiated on a police report. He, therefore, submits that taking cognizance for the offence under Section 188 of I.P.C. against the petitioner is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. It is further submitted that offence under Section 269 of I.P.C. is also not made out under the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶11

NA528 No. 45849 of 2025

¶12

¶13

So far as the offence under Section 51 of the Act, 2005, and Section 3 of the Act, 1897, is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that as per Government Order dated 26.10.2021, all the cases relating to the Act, 2005, the Act, 1897, and Sections 188, 269, 270, 271 of I.P.C., should have been withdrawn, but the Government Order was not followed in respect of present applicant. No application for withdrawal of prosecution was filed by the counsel for the State of U.P.

¶14

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of applicant, but could not dispute the fact that the Government Order was passed on 26.10.2021, for withdrawal of prosecution relating to offence under Section 188, 269, 270, 271 of I.P.C. and Section 3 of the Act, 1897 and Section 51 of the Act, 2005, copy of which has been appended at page 70 of the application.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, impugned proceedings are nothing but an abuse of process of Court and the applicant is unnecessarily being prosecuted by the State Government. Furthermore, the facts of the case do not disclose any such offence for which he is being prosecuted.

¶16

For sake of convenience, Section 195 Cr.P.C. reads as under:-

¶17

"195. P rosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence .-(1) No Court shall take cognizance --

¶18

(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860), or

¶19

(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or

¶20

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;

¶21

(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such

¶22

NA528 No. 45849 of 2025

¶23

¶24

offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or

¶25

(ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or

¶26

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii),

¶27

1 [except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.]

¶28

(2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause (a) of sub-section (1) any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint:

¶29

Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded.

¶30

(3) In clause (b) of sub-section (1), the term "Court" means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section.

¶31

(4) For the purposes of clause (b) of sub-section (1), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appellable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such Civil Court is situate:

¶32

Provided that

¶33

(a) where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate Court of

¶34

NA528 No. 45849 of 2025

¶35

¶36

inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate;

¶37

(b) where appeals lie to a Civil and also to a Revenue Court, such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed."

¶38

Therefore, in respect of offence punishable under Section 188 of I.P.C., the Court can take cognizance only on a complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or some other public servant concerned. In this case, the F.I.R. was registered on a police report, on which the chargesheet has been submitted and it was treated to be a complaint. The learned Magistrate proceeded further and wrongly, illegally took cognizance of the offence. In view thereof taking cognizance for offence under Section 188 of I.P.C. by the learned Magistrate is hit by Section 195 of Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the order taking cognizance for offence under Section 188 of I.P.C. against the applicant on a police report is unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶39

It would be apt to extract Section 269 of I.P.C. which is as under:

¶40

"269. Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life.-

¶41

Whoever unlawfully or negligently does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both."

¶42

From perusal of F.I.R., it is clear that no allegation has been levelled against the applicant that he had spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life. Only it is alleged in the F.I.R. that on 10.2.2022, the informant found that a road show was being organized by the applicant without taking prior permission. It is nowhere alleged that the applicant was responsible for spreading of any infection, therefore, in view of above, no offence under Section 269 of I.P.C. is made out.

¶43

NA528 No. 45849 of 2025

¶44

¶45

As per Government Order dated 26.10.2021, all the offences punishable under Sections 188, 269, 270, 271 of I.P.C. and offences under Section 3 of the Act, 1897 and Section 51 of the Act, 2005, were withdrawn except against the Member of Parliament, M.L.A. and M.L.C., but no allegation has been levelled in the F.I.R. that the applicant was ex. or present M.P./M.L.A./M.L.C.. No reason was given by the State Counsel as to why prosecution against the applicant was not withdrawn in view of Government Order dated 26.10.2021.

¶46

Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the offences under Sections 188 and 269 of I.P.C. and Section 51 of the Act, 2005 and Section 3 of the Act, 1897, are not attracted against the applicant under the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of Government Order dated 26.10.2021 the proceedings against the applicant are liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶47

In view thereof, the present application is allowed and the summoning/cognizance order dated 13.7.2022 as well as chargesheet dated 23.4.2022 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1000 of 2022 (State vs. Rizwan Qureshi), arising out of Case Crime No. 35 of 2022, under Sections 188 and 269 of I.P.C. and Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, P.S. Mughalpura, District Moradabad, pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Court No. 5, District Moradabad, so far it relates to the applicant, are hereby quashed.

¶48

(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)

¶49

December 3, 2025

¶50

A.P. Pandey

¶51

Digitally signed by :- ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd. Rizwan Qureshi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mohd. Rizwan Qureshi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ritu Kumari Kushwaha and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Bhavana Kumari and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Azam Khan vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Anchal Vijaybhai Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pratik Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Kumar Jaiswal vs State of U.P. and 2 Others