Mohd Lukman Alias Pullu and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Vinay Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶11

The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed seeking quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 1824 of 2022 (Afreen Begum vs. Mohd. Lukman @ Pullu and others, under Sections 323, 504, 354 IPC, P.S. Chowk, District Varanasi as well as proceeding of Criminal Revision No. 255 of 2022 (Afreen Begum vs. State & others), order dated 13.10.2022 passed by Additional District & Session Judge, Fast Track Court, Varanasi along with summoning order dated 03.05.2025, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Varanasi, pending before him.

¶12

Brief facts of the case are that opposite party no. 2 moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on 16.03.2022 with regard to incident dated 29.01.2022. On which after receiving police report, the learned Magistrate rejected the said application by order dated 25.03.2022 on the ground that a civil dispute between the parties is going on.

¶13

NA528 No. 23335 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

Aggrieved by the same, opposite party no. 2 preferred a Criminal Revision No. 255 of 2022, which was allowed by the revisional court vide order dated 13.10.2022 and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. Thereafter, learned Magistrate treated the application as complaint case and recorded the statement of witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and conducted an inquiry under Section 202 (1) Cr.P.C.

¶16

Learned counsel for applicants has submitted that present proceeding is a counter blast to the FIR lodged by applicant no. 1 against opposite party no. 2, in Case Crime No. 50 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420 IPC, in which charge sheet has already been submitted against opposite party no. 2. He has further submitted that inquiry report under Section 202 (1) Cr.P.C. has clearly negate the allegation made in the complaint and establishes that no offence under Sections 323, 354 IPC is made out. He has further submitted that the medical examination has been conducted on 31.01.2022 after delay of two days' while the incident is said to have been taken place on 29.01.2022. He has further submitted that dispute between the parties are in civil in nature and complaint has been filed against as many as 12 persons in vague and only in omnibus manner without any specific role assigning to the applicants.

¶17

Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has submitted that in present case applicants have assaulted opposite party no. 2 on 29.01.2022 as a result of which opposite party no. 2 sustained 5 injuries. The opposite party no. 2 went to police station on 30.01.2022, but the police has neither lodged the FIR nor sent her for medical examination. Opposite party no. 2 is the daughter of Mohd. Akaram and after death of her father, the applicants are trying to forcibly expelled opposite party no. 2 from her ancestral house. He has further submitted that the learned Magistrate on 13.05.2025

¶18

NA528 No. 23335 of 2025

¶19

3

¶20

summoned the applicant after recording statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and after conducting inquiry under Section 202 (1) Cr.P.C. The version of complaint and ground taken by the applicant cannot be adjudicated at this stage.

¶21

Having considered the rival submission of the applicants and perused the record, this Court find that the dispute between the parties primarily arises out of property dispute. The inquiry conducted under Section 202 (1) Cr.P.C. including the report of police dated 24.03.2022 negate the occurrence of of mar-peet or outrage of modesty as alleged by the complainant in a complaint whether only minor altercation occurred. Further unexplained in delay in medical examination create doubt regarding prosecution version. The present proceeding is counter blast to the earlier complaint lodged by applicant no. 1. In the present case, the learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate the material on record and has passed summoning order in mechanical manner.

¶22

In view of the above, the present application under Section 528 BNSS is allowed.

¶23

The entire proceeding of aforesaid case is, hereby quashed.

¶24

January 21, 2026 v.k. updh.

¶25

(Padam Narain Mishra,J.)

¶26

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

Mohd Lukman Alias Pullu and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Lukman Alias Pullu and Another 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

Rashid Siddiqui vs State of U.P. and Another

Lokesh vs State of U.P. and Another

Shakir Ali and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi Kumar Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gudiya Devi vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Abhishek Mishra Alias Abhishek Verma and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another