Faraheem and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25090 of 2024

Faraheem And 3 Others

	Versus .....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Ajay Tripathi, Surya Prakash Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 81

¶6

HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

¶7

Heard learned Counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record. No one is present on behalf of opposite party no.2 despite personal service.

¶8

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the summoning order dated 13.06.2024, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Garh Mukteshwar, Hapur, in Complaint Case No. 834 of 2020, Afsariya v. Faraheem and others, under Section 323 I.P.C., Police Station Garh Mukteshwar, District Hapur as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicants that opposite party no.2 is mother of applicant no.1. Applicant no.1 filed a civil suit bearing No. 58 of 2020, Faraheem v. Afsariya before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Garhmukteshwar, District Hapur for permanent injunction and not to sale the property in dispute. The learned Civil Judge restrained the parties to sell the disputed property. Thereafter, in order to make pressure upon the applicants, opposite party no.2 filed the present compliant regarding the incident dated 23.09.2020 against the applicants, whereas no such incident occurred at that time. The applicants have never beaten the opposite party no.2 nor pressed her neck. Further, no medical report has been submitted with the complaint. The opposite party no.2 got herself examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses Chand and Shabana under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate has not taken into

¶10

A482 No. 25090 of 2024

¶11

2

¶12

consideration the statements of complainant and witnesses properly and summoned the applicants under Section 323 I.P.C., whereas no prima facie case is made out against the applicants. It is further submitted that Chand (PW-1) is a mentally retarded person and not in a position to give any statement, therefore, his statement is not trustworthy but the learned Trial Court has not considered the said fact, therefore, the summoning order as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid case may be quashed.

¶13

Per contra , learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint, the statements of the complainant and witnesses and the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants and as such, entire proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶14

As per record, opposite party no.2 filed a compliant against the applicants regarding the incident dated 23.09.2020, in which she has made an allegation that the applicants have beaten her and pressed her neck. The opposite party no.2 got herself examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses Chand and Shabana under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate has summoned the applicants under Section 323 I.P.C.

¶15

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 submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 . The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.

¶17

A482 No. 25090 of 2024

¶18

3

¶19

Accordingly, the application is dismissed .

¶20

(Chawan Prakash,J.)

¶21

March 25, 2026 Vijay

¶22

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

Faraheem and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faraheem and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Ibrahim and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mordhaj and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tarachnad @ Tare and 3 Others vs State of Up and 4 Others

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

Abdul Umar Alias Munne Ansari and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Hariom Vs State of U.P. and Another