Arshad and others v. State of U.P. and another) has been rejected

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit preferred on behalf of applicants is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Tewari, learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for State.

3. Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash order dated

8.7.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sambhal at Chandausi in Sessions Trial no. 94 of 2023 (arising out of Case Crime no. 553A of 2010) (State vs. Shamshad and others) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504 IPC, PS- Nakhasa, District Sambhal whereby application/objections dated 6.2.2016, which was filed by the applicants in compliance of order dated 1.2.2016 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 675 of 2016 (Arshad and others vs. State of U.P. and another) has been rejected.

4. Brief facts of the case is that in pursuance to cross-case registered against applicants at the behest of opposite party no. 2 in shape of Case Crime no. 553A of 2010, after conclusion of investigation, final report was submitted against which protest petition preferred at the behest of opposite party no. 2 was allowed and applicants were summoned vide order dated 2.5.2012 to face trial. Being aggrieved with summoning order dated 2.5.2012, applicants approached this Court by way of preferring Crl. Misc. Application no. 14743 of 2013 (Shamshad vs. State of U.P. and others) wherein, co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 2 NA528 No. 27645 of 2025

30.4.2013 observed that learned Magistrate has taken into consideration certain extraneous material for summoning the applicants, hence the cognizance order was quashed and learned Magistrate was directed to pass fresh order in accordance with law. Thereafter, learned Magistrate concerned vide order dated 6.6.2013 again summoned the applicants to face trial. Order dated 6.6.2013 was challenged by applicants before learned Revisional Court by way of filing Criminal Revision no. 309 of 2013 but the same was dismissed vide order dated 21.8.2015. Being aggrieved with order dated 6.6.2013 and 21.8.2015, applicants preferred another Criminal Misc. Application no. 37058 of 2015 (Arshad and others vs. State of U.P. and another) which was also dismissed vide order dated

23.12.2015 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Applicants challenged the order dated 23.12.2015 before Hon'ble Supreme Court by means of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) no. 675 of 2016 but the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 1.2.2016, with liberty to the accused persons to take all points before learned Magistrate.

5. In compliance to order dated 1.2.2016 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, applicants and other co-accused persons filed detailed application/objection on dated 6.2.2016 before learned Magistrate with prayer seeking quashing of summoning order dated 6.6.2013 and acceptance of final report but the said application has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 8.7.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sambhal which has been challenged through instant application.

6. Learned counsel for applicants contended that injured namely Jameel in present Case Crime no. 553A of 2010 was earlier on applicants' side in lodging FIR against son of opposite party no. 2 for the alleged incident but later on he colluded with opposite party no. 2 for lodging present FIR bearing Case Crime no. 553 of 2010. Further it is submitted that after filing of application dated 6.2.2016, a number of times applicants requested learned Magistrate to decide the same, but learned Magistrate has not taken care of the same and instead of deciding the application, he committed the case to court of Sessions Judge vide order dated 16.3.2023, whereas, learned Magistrate was bound to decide the pending application first and then to proceed further for committal of case. It is also submitted that the reasoning given by learned Sessions Judge in the impugned order 3 NA528 No. 27645 of 2025 dated 8.7.2025 that since case has been committed to Sessions Court and charges have been framed as such at this stage, it is not justified to take back the proceedings and to accept the final report, is unsustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed.

7. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through instant application and submitted that learned Magistrate was not bound in compliance to order dated 1.2.2016 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court since there was no such direction in favour of learned Magistrate in the order dated 1.2.2016. Learned Sessions Judge, rightly passed the order impugned since charges have already been framed, therefore, no interference is required.

8. After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, this Court finds that on previous occasion, learned counsel for applicants was asked to bring on record any injury report of injured in Case Crime no. 553 of 2010 along with statements, if recorded at his behest. Today when the matter has been taken up, learned counsel for applicants came up with supplementary affidavit which is taken on record through which it transpired that injury report of injured Jameel is appended to the supplementary affidavit wherein it is crystal clearly mentioned that injury no. 1 is grievous in nature. It is also stated in the affidavit that there is no statement of Jameel recorded in Case Crime no. 553 of 2010. However, statement of injured Jameel recorded in present Case Crime no. 553A of 2010 is available at page no. 35 of the instant application wherein crystal clear allegation has been made against the applicants for causing the alleged incident where injured received the injuries. Hence, the injury report along with statement of injured corroborates the prosecution's case which is to be dealt with at the stage of trial.

9. So far as legality of impugned order is concerned, this Court finds that learned Sessions Judge rightly observed that once charges have already been framed vide order dated 1.6.2023, no occasion arises to quash summoning order dated 6.6.2013. Moreover the evidence in shape of injury report and statements of injured also warrants for adjudication at the stage of trial. The applicants will have ample opportunity to raise their 4 NA528 No. 27645 of 2025 defence during cross-examination and under Section 233 Cr.P.C but at this stage looking into the reasoning of the order impugned dated

8.7.2025 along with material on record, this Court finds that there is no infirmity in the order impugned and no ground exists for interference of this Court.

10. The instant application 528 BNSS stands dismissed accordingly. November 25, 2025 Shaswat (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit preferred on behalf of applicants is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Tewari, learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for State.

3. Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash order dated

8.7.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sambhal at Chandausi in Sessions Trial no. 94 of 2023 (arising out of Case Crime no. 553A of 2010) (State vs. Shamshad and others) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504 IPC, PS- Nakhasa, District Sambhal whereby application/objections dated 6.2.2016, which was filed by the applicants in compliance of order dated 1.2.2016 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 675 of 2016 (Arshad and others vs. State of U.P. and another) has been rejected.

4. Brief facts of the case is that in pursuance to cross-case registered against applicants at the behest of opposite party no. 2 in shape of Case Crime no. 553A of 2010, after conclusion of investigation, final report was submitted against which protest petition preferred at the behest of opposite party no. 2 was allowed and applicants were summoned vide order dated 2.5.2012 to face trial. Being aggrieved with summoning order dated 2.5.2012, applicants approached this Court by way of preferring Crl. Misc. Application no. 14743 of 2013 (Shamshad vs. State of U.P. and others) wherein, co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 2 NA528 No. 27645 of 2025

30.4.2013 observed that learned Magistrate has taken into consideration certain extraneous material for summoning the applicants, hence the cognizance order was quashed and learned Magistrate was directed to pass fresh order in accordance with law. Thereafter, learned Magistrate concerned vide order dated 6.6.2013 again summoned the applicants to face trial. Order dated 6.6.2013 was challenged by applicants before learned Revisional Court by way of filing Criminal Revision no. 309 of 2013 but the same was dismissed vide order dated 21.8.2015. Being aggrieved with order dated 6.6.2013 and 21.8.2015, applicants preferred another Criminal Misc. Application no. 37058 of 2015 (Arshad and others vs. State of U.P. and another) which was also dismissed vide order dated

23.12.2015 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Applicants challenged the order dated 23.12.2015 before Hon'ble Supreme Court by means of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) no. 675 of 2016 but the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 1.2.2016, with liberty to the accused persons to take all points before learned Magistrate.

5. In compliance to order dated 1.2.2016 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, applicants and other co-accused persons filed detailed application/objection on dated 6.2.2016 before learned Magistrate with prayer seeking quashing of summoning order dated 6.6.2013 and acceptance of final report but the said application has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 8.7.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sambhal which has been challenged through instant application.

6. Learned counsel for applicants contended that injured namely Jameel in present Case Crime no. 553A of 2010 was earlier on applicants' side in lodging FIR against son of opposite party no. 2 for the alleged incident but later on he colluded with opposite party no. 2 for lodging present FIR bearing Case Crime no. 553 of 2010. Further it is submitted that after filing of application dated 6.2.2016, a number of times applicants requested learned Magistrate to decide the same, but learned Magistrate has not taken care of the same and instead of deciding the application, he committed the case to court of Sessions Judge vide order dated 16.3.2023, whereas, learned Magistrate was bound to decide the pending application first and then to proceed further for committal of case. It is also submitted that the reasoning given by learned Sessions Judge in the impugned order 3 NA528 No. 27645 of 2025 dated 8.7.2025 that since case has been committed to Sessions Court and charges have been framed as such at this stage, it is not justified to take back the proceedings and to accept the final report, is unsustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed.

7. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through instant application and submitted that learned Magistrate was not bound in compliance to order dated 1.2.2016 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court since there was no such direction in favour of learned Magistrate in the order dated 1.2.2016. Learned Sessions Judge, rightly passed the order impugned since charges have already been framed, therefore, no interference is required.

8. After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, this Court finds that on previous occasion, learned counsel for applicants was asked to bring on record any injury report of injured in Case Crime no. 553 of 2010 along with statements, if recorded at his behest. Today when the matter has been taken up, learned counsel for applicants came up with supplementary affidavit which is taken on record through which it transpired that injury report of injured Jameel is appended to the supplementary affidavit wherein it is crystal clearly mentioned that injury no. 1 is grievous in nature. It is also stated in the affidavit that there is no statement of Jameel recorded in Case Crime no. 553 of 2010. However, statement of injured Jameel recorded in present Case Crime no. 553A of 2010 is available at page no. 35 of the instant application wherein crystal clear allegation has been made against the applicants for causing the alleged incident where injured received the injuries. Hence, the injury report along with statement of injured corroborates the prosecution's case which is to be dealt with at the stage of trial.

9. So far as legality of impugned order is concerned, this Court finds that learned Sessions Judge rightly observed that once charges have already been framed vide order dated 1.6.2023, no occasion arises to quash summoning order dated 6.6.2013. Moreover the evidence in shape of injury report and statements of injured also warrants for adjudication at the stage of trial. The applicants will have ample opportunity to raise their 4 NA528 No. 27645 of 2025 defence during cross-examination and under Section 233 Cr.P.C but at this stage looking into the reasoning of the order impugned dated

8.7.2025 along with material on record, this Court finds that there is no infirmity in the order impugned and no ground exists for interference of this Court.

10. The instant application 528 BNSS stands dismissed accordingly. November 25, 2025 Shaswat (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)