Rizwan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Rizwan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should exercise judicial intervention under Section 528 BNSS to quash the ongoing proceedings of Complaint Case No. 7 of 2023 at the present stage, given that the protest petition was allowed, statements under Sections 200/202 Cr.P.C. were recorded and summons were issued on 7.2.2024.

Court's answer

The summoning order dated 7.2.2024 shows application of mind by the court below, and specific allegations stand against the applicants under Section 354 IPC read with Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act; hence the Court is not required to go into factual aspects regarding the plea of innocence of the applicants at this juncture.

Ratio / Principle

Judicial interference at this stage is declined and the application under Section 528 BNSS to quash the proceedings is rejected.

Key takeaways

Once a bail application is preferred, it shall be considered with utmost expedition strictly as per the law of the land without any delay (in response to counsel's request for a direction regarding bail).obiter¶¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Court No. 73), Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J. — Order dated 17.3.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:37403): Application under Section 528 BNSS (No. 8443 of 2025) by Rizwan and another seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 7 of 2023 (Shabana vs. Rizwan & others), under Sections 498-A, 354 IPC & 4 D.P. Act, P.S. Khajuriya, District Rampur, pending before the Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C. (Offence against Women), Rampur — REJECTED. The FIR had been lodged under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 354 IPC read with Section 3/4 D.P. Act alleging dowry demand and harassment; the Investigating Officer's final report in favour of the applicants (insufficient material; compromise) was upset on a protest petition; statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded and summons issued on 7.2.2024. Held: the summoning order shows application of mind by the court below and specific allegations subsist against the applicants; pleas of innocence raise factual aspects not for examination at this stage; interference declined. On counsel's request for bail, the Court held that any bail application preferred shall be considered expeditiously and strictly as per law without delay.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:37403

Court No. - 73

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8443 of 2025

Applicant :- Rizwan And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Irfan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

Heard Sri K.K. Yadav, (AOR No.A/K-0285/2012), holding brief of Sri Mohd. Irfan learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Muniraj Mehrotra, learned counsel for the State/opposite party no.1.

This application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 7 of 2023 (Shabana vs. Rizwan & others), under Sections 498-A 354 IPC & 4 D.P. Act, Police Station Khajuriya, District Rampur, pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C., (Offence against Women), District Rampur.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that a first information report stood lodged against the applicants and four others under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 354 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act, relatable to the fact that the opposite party no.2 marriage stood solemnized with the applicant no.1 and there was a demand of dowry apart from the same maltreatment and harassment was being made.

Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the allegations so sought to be levelled under Section 354 of the IPC are totally false and incorrect, the post investigation Investigating Officer submitted a final report in favour of the applicants taking too on the premise that there were insufficient material to rope in the applicants and on the basis of a compromise being entered between the parties and thereafter a protest petition came to be preferred and on the basis of the same statements under Section 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded and on 7.2.20224

summons have been issued. He also submits that the applicants are innocent.

Learned AGA on the other hand submits that the offences are made out against the applicants in the first information report.

Having heard the submissions so made across the bar the only question which is to be considered is with regard to the extent of judicial intervention at this stage. Apparently the first information report stood lodged under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 354 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act and thereafter a final report stood submitted in favour of the applicants which on a protest petition came to be allowed and thereafter statements under Section 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded. The order dated 7.2.2024 summoning the applicants shows application of mind by the court below and further there happens to be specific allegations against the applicants that too under Section 354 IPC read with Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act. This Court at this juncture is not required to go into factual aspects regarding the plea of innocence of the applicants. Thus, interference is declined and the application is rejected .

Learned counsel for the applicants seeks direction for bail.

In the opinion of the Court, once a bail application is preferred then the same shall be considered with most expeditions strictly as per the law of the land without any delay

Order Date :- 17.3.2025 piyush

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