Ainul Rizvi v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another
Case Details
Sri Mohd. Ali, advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and the same is taken on record. Office is directed to print the name of Sri Mohd. Ali as counsel for opposite party no. 2 in the next cause list. Sri Mohmaad Ali, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 has made preliminary objections that the applicant has already instituted an application under section 482 no. 695 of 2017, wherein, an order was passed on 09.03.2022 which is quoted hereinunder:- "Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. By means of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3240 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No. 15 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 323 & 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Ambedkar Nagar pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar, as well as charge sheet and cognizance/summoning order against the petitioner." Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that it is a case of matrimonial dispute. The petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. Further submission is that there are contradictions in the statements of the complainant and independent witness recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Further submission is that there is no credible and cogent evidence is available against the petitioner. 2 A482 No. 7120 of 2025 It is next submitted that no offence as described in the F.I.R. or in the statement of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation has taken place and the whole story as narrated in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement of the witnesses has been cooked and manufactured, therefore, the court below has materially erred in summoning the petitioner, as such the orders are liable to be set aside. Before arguing the case on merits, learned counsel for the petitioner while pressing the present petition submits that the court below while summoning the petitioner has materially erred and did not follow the dictum of law as propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases that summoning in criminal case is a serious matter and the court below without dwelling into material and visualizing the case on the touch stone of probability should not summon accused person to face criminal trial. It is further submitted that the court below has not taken into consideration the material placed before the trial court along with charge sheet and, therefore, the trial court has materially erred in summoning the petitioner. So far as quashing of charge sheet and entire proceedings is concerned, 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 petitioner. All the submission made relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court. 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. Moreover, the petitioner has got a right of discharge according to the provisions prescribed in Cr.P.C., as the case may be, through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court. The prayer for quashing the proceedings and charge sheet is refused. So far as regard the cognizance and summoning order passed by the learned trial court concerned, at the stage of taking cognizance, trial court can simply form an opinion as to whether the case is fit for taking and committing the matter for trial or not. In the present case, learned trial court clearly expressed his opinion that he perused all the record and clearly indicated that the material placed before him is sufficient to proceed the case. Thus, the cognizance order is not a proforma order. Every aspect is touched by learned trial court and petitioner failed to adduce any evidence which caused prejudiced to him. So, the cognizance and summoning order is perfectly valid and there is no occasion to quash the same. However, it is provided to the petitioner to surrender before the court below and if he applies for bail, then his bail application shall be considered and decided in accordance with law propounded by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021. In this case Hon'ble the Apex Court has already laid down guidelines for grant of bail, without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and the statutory provisions governing consideration in grant of bail, no specific directions need be issued by this Court as it is expected that the court concerned will take into consideration the necessary guidelines already issued by the Apex Court. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of. 3 A482 No. 7120 of 2025 Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Office is directed to communicate this order to court concerned to proceed further in the matter." Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the applicant had instituted the aforesaid application for quashing of the entire proceeding and the summoning order and that was declined by this Court. He added that this fact has been concealed deliberately by the applicant, thus, instant application is liable to the dismissed on this ground alone. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that she may be granted a weeks' time to reply to the preliminary objections raised by counsel for opposite party no. 2. List/put up this matter in the week commencing 15.09.2025 as fresh. August 28, 2025 Mayank (Shree Prakash Singh,J.)
Sri Mohd. Ali, advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and the same is taken on record. Office is directed to print the name of Sri Mohd. Ali as counsel for opposite party no. 2 in the next cause list. Sri Mohmaad Ali, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 has made preliminary objections that the applicant has already instituted an application under section 482 no. 695 of 2017, wherein, an order was passed on 09.03.2022 which is quoted hereinunder:- "Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. By means of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3240 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No. 15 of 2016, under Sections 498-A, 323 & 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Ambedkar Nagar pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar, as well as charge sheet and cognizance/summoning order against the petitioner." Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that it is a case of matrimonial dispute. The petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. Further submission is that there are contradictions in the statements of the complainant and independent witness recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Further submission is that there is no credible and cogent evidence is available against the petitioner. 2 A482 No. 7120 of 2025 It is next submitted that no offence as described in the F.I.R. or in the statement of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation has taken place and the whole story as narrated in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement of the witnesses has been cooked and manufactured, therefore, the court below has materially erred in summoning the petitioner, as such the orders are liable to be set aside. Before arguing the case on merits, learned counsel for the petitioner while pressing the present petition submits that the court below while summoning the petitioner has materially erred and did not follow the dictum of law as propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases that summoning in criminal case is a serious matter and the court below without dwelling into material and visualizing the case on the touch stone of probability should not summon accused person to face criminal trial. It is further submitted that the court below has not taken into consideration the material placed before the trial court along with charge sheet and, therefore, the trial court has materially erred in summoning the petitioner. So far as quashing of charge sheet and entire proceedings is concerned, 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 petitioner. All the submission made relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court. 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. Moreover, the petitioner has got a right of discharge according to the provisions prescribed in Cr.P.C., as the case may be, through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court. The prayer for quashing the proceedings and charge sheet is refused. So far as regard the cognizance and summoning order passed by the learned trial court concerned, at the stage of taking cognizance, trial court can simply form an opinion as to whether the case is fit for taking and committing the matter for trial or not. In the present case, learned trial court clearly expressed his opinion that he perused all the record and clearly indicated that the material placed before him is sufficient to proceed the case. Thus, the cognizance order is not a proforma order. Every aspect is touched by learned trial court and petitioner failed to adduce any evidence which caused prejudiced to him. So, the cognizance and summoning order is perfectly valid and there is no occasion to quash the same. However, it is provided to the petitioner to surrender before the court below and if he applies for bail, then his bail application shall be considered and decided in accordance with law propounded by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5191 of 2021, decided on 07.10.2021. In this case Hon'ble the Apex Court has already laid down guidelines for grant of bail, without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and the statutory provisions governing consideration in grant of bail, no specific directions need be issued by this Court as it is expected that the court concerned will take into consideration the necessary guidelines already issued by the Apex Court. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of. 3 A482 No. 7120 of 2025 Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Office is directed to communicate this order to court concerned to proceed further in the matter." Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the applicant had instituted the aforesaid application for quashing of the entire proceeding and the summoning order and that was declined by this Court. He added that this fact has been concealed deliberately by the applicant, thus, instant application is liable to the dismissed on this ground alone. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that she may be granted a weeks' time to reply to the preliminary objections raised by counsel for opposite party no. 2. List/put up this matter in the week commencing 15.09.2025 as fresh. August 28, 2025 Mayank (Shree Prakash Singh,J.)