Mohd. Aftab and others v. State of U.P. and another) have been challenged and the prayer for qua

1. Case called out in revised list. Larned counsel for the petitioners Shri Puneet Tripathi and Shri Mohammad Jahid, Advocates are present. No one appeared on behalf opposite party No.2 though name of Ms Dipika Singh and Shri Saytendra Nath Mishra, Advocates, have been printed in the cause list. However, learned A.G.A. is present for the State.

2. It is to be noted that the matter relates to the year 2019 and during the pendency of the proceedings both the parties have settled the matter amicably and entered into a compromise. Therefore, in this background of 2 CRLP No. 11910 of 2019 the case, this court proceeded to decide the case finally.

3. In both the writ petitions the summoning order dated 12.07.2017, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Court No.20, Sultanpur (in short "trial court") and the order dated 25.09.2018, passed by the IIIrd Additional Session Judge, Sultanpur (in short "revisional court") in Criminal Revision No.299 of 2017 (Mohd. Aftab and others Vs. State of U.P. and another) have been challenged and the prayer for quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint No.67 of 2017 (Mohd. Halim Vs. Aftab Ahmad and others) has been sought. As such both the petitions are being decided by a common order.

4. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this court finds that the following facts would be relevant for deciding the petitions indicated above. (i) The marriage of Nagma Bano (daughter of opposite party No.2) was solemnized with Aftab Ahmad (petitioner No.1 in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.11910 of 2019) on 24.09.2016 according to Muslim rites and rituals. (ii) According to the opposite party No.2 various articles were provided to the couple in the marriage ceremony. (iii) Nagma Bano, daughter of the opposite party No.2, on account of matrimonial dispute/discord left the company of her husband Aftab Ahmad on 27.10.2016. (iv) On 18.12.2016, the parties amicably settled their disputes and the same appears from the deed of compromise dated 18.12.2016, annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the petition. (v) The compromise deed dated 18.12.2016 indicates that Nagma Bano, daughter of opposite party No.2, and Aftab Ahmed, husband of Nagma Bano, put their signatures in the presence of Mohd. Halim, Nafisur Rahman, Ansar Ali, Hamid Khan and Mukhtar Ahmed. (vi) The compromise deed dated 18.12.2016, further indicates that the amount to the tune of Rs.7, 25,000 was provided to the second party to the deed namely Nagma Bano, daughter of opposite party no.2. Rs. 25,000/- was provided for sustenance during the Iddat period, as Nagma was divorced by Aftab Ahmed, and this fact is also apparent from the "Talaq Nama" dated 18.12.2016, annexed at page No. 43 to this petition. (vii) The deed of compromise dated 18.12.2016 also indicates that the entire "jewellery" was also handed over to Nagma Bano, daughter of 3 CRLP No. 11910 of 2019 opposite party No.2, wife of Aftab Ahmed (petitioner No.1 in Writ Petition No.11910 of 2019). (viii) It would be relevant to indicate at this stage that the compromise deed, indicated above, has not been impeached by the opposite party No.2. (ix) After execution of the deed of compromise dated 18.12.2016, the opposed party No.2 filed a complaint dated 20.02.2017, in the court of competent jurisdiction at District - Sultanpur, making allegations therein to attract the offenses under sections 419, 420, 323, 504 IPC. (x) The complaint was filed by the opposite party No. 2 impleading Aftab Ahmed (husband), Afzal Ahmed (brother-in-law), Ahmadi Begum (mother-in-law), Shameem Fatima (Jethani), Farooq Ahmed (cousin father-in-law), Ansar Ahmed (cousin father-in-law), Uzra (cousin mother- in-law) and Jamal Ahmed (friend/mediator) as opposite parties. (xi) Thereafter, the Magistrate concerned passed the order dated

12.07.2017, whereby the petitioners namely Aftab, Afzal Ahmad, Ahmadi, Shameem Fatima, Mohammad Jamal, Farooq Ahmed, Ansar Ahmed and Uzra were summoned. (xii) Being aggrieved by the order dated 12.07.2017, the petitioners filed a criminal revision, registered as Criminal Revision No.299 of 2017 (Aftab Ahmed and 7 others vs. State of UP and another). This revision was dismissed by the learned IIIrd Additional Session Judge, Sultanpur (in short ‘Revisional Court’) vide order dated 25.09.2018. The relevant portion of the order dated 25.092018, whereby the Revisional Court dismissed the revision and affirmed the order passed by the Magistrate dated 12.07.2017, reads as under:- "हस्तगत मामले में िनगरानीकतार्गण की ओर से कोई बहस हेतु उपिस्थत नहीं आया। िवप्षी मय िव्षान अिधव्वा उपिस्थत रहा। अतः िनगरानी का गुण दोष पर िनस्तारण िनगरानी यािचका में िलये गये आधारों एवं िवप्षी ्षारा ्ऺस्तुत तकों के ्ऺकाश में िकया जा रहा है। प्ऴावली के पिरशीलन से यह ्ऺकट होता है िक हस्तगत िनगरानी के िवप्षी सं० 2 मोहम्मद हलीम ्षारा िनगरानीकतार्गण आफताब अहमद, अफजाल अहमद, अहमदी बेगम, शमीम फाितमा उफर् गुल्लू, फारूख अहमद, अन्सार अहमद, उजरा, जमाल अहमद अन्सारी को नािमत करते हुए पिरवाद प्ऴ ्ऺस्तुत िकया गया। मुकदमे की कायर्वाही के दौरान न्यायालय ्षारा धारा-200 दं०्ऺ०सं० के अधीन पिरवादी मो० हलीम का बयान एवं धारा-202 दं०्ऺ०सं० के अधीन पी०डब्लू०-1 नगमा बानो, पी०डब्लू0-2 मो० करीम एवं पी०डब्लू०-3 मो० आफताब का बयान अंिकत िकया गया। िव्षान न्याियक मिजस््िेट ने मामले की सुनवाई कर अपने सम्ष उपलब्ध साम्षी के 4 CRLP No. 11910 of 2019 आधार पर ्ऺश्नगत आदेश के माध्यम से िनगरानीकतार्गण को धारा-419, 420, 323, 504 भा०दं०सं० के अपराध हेतु िवचारणाथर् आहूत िकया। यह सुस्थािपत िविधक िस्थित है िक िकसी ्िि्व को िकसी अपराध के िवचारण हेतु आहूत िकये जाने के स्तर पर उस स्तर की साष्य संवी्षा अपेि्षत नहीं है, िजस स्तर की साष्य संवी्षा मुकदमे के अ्षेतर ्ऺकरण पर यथा आरोप िवरून अथवा मुकदमे के गुण दोष के आधार पर अिन्तम िनस्तारण के स्तर पर अपेि्षत होती है। िवचारणाथर् आहूत िकये जाने के स्तर पर मिजस््िेट को मा्ऴ यह देखना होता है िक उपलब्ध साम्षी के आधार पर िकसी ्िि्व/्िि्वयों के िवरू्ध पिरवािदत िकये गये अपराध का ्ऺथम दृ्िया मामला बनता है अथवा नहीं एवं कायर्वाही हेतु अ्षसर होने हेतु ्ऺथम दृष््िा साष्य उपलब्ध है अथवा नहीं। यिद अपने सम्ष उपलब्ध तथ्यों, साष्यों के आधार पर वह यह पाता है िक कायर्वाही हेतु अ्षसर होने के िलए पयार्प्त ्ऺथम दृ्िया साष्य उपलब्ध है तो वह उन ्िि्व/्िि्वयों को उन धाराओं के अपराध हेतु िवचारणाथर् आहूत करता है। हस्तगत ्ऺकरण में रेस्पॉन्डेन्ट सं०-2 ्षारा पिरवाद प्ऴ ्ऺस्तुत िकये जाने के उपरान्त सम्बिन्धत मिजस््िेट ्षारा पिरवादी एवं उसके सा्षीगण का दण्ड ्ऺि्वया संिहता के अध्याय-15 के अधीन धारा 200 व 202 के अधीन बयान अंिकत िकया गया। अपने सम्ष उपलब्ध साम्षी को िवचार में लेते हुए िव्षान न्याियक मिजस््िेट ने आ्षेिपत तलबी आदेश पािरत िकया है। पिरवादी एवं पिरवादी के साि्षयों के बयानों से उन धाराओं के अपराध का ्ऺथम दृ्िया मामला िनगरानीकतार्गण के िवरू्ध बनता है, िजन धाराओं के अपराध के िलए उन्हें िवचारणाथर् आहूत िकया गया है। िनगरानीकतार्गण ्षारा आ्षेिपत आदेश के िवरू्ध, जो तकर् ्ऺस्तुत िकये गये हैं, वे मुकदमे के अ्षेतर ्ऺकरण पर महत्वपूणर् एवं सुसंगत हो सकते हैं, िकन्तु इस स्तर पर उनके आधार पर आ्षेिपत आदेश को अपास्त नहीं िकया जा सकता। उपरो्व समी्षा एवं िववेचना के आधार पर इस न्यायालय के िवचार में िव्षान न्याियक मिजस््िेट ्षारा पािरत आ्षेिपत आदेश िदनांिकत 12.07.2017 में िकसी ्ऺकार की िनयम ्ऺितकू लता, िविध िवरू्धता अथवा ्षे्ऴािधकार सम्बन्धी ्ऴुिट िव्यमान नहीं है। िव्षान न्याियक मिजस््िेट ्षारा पािरत आदेश तथ्य, िविध एवं साष्य रो समिथत है। तदनुसार उ्व आदेश में हस्त्षेप िकये जाने का कोई युि्वयु्व अथवा तकर् संगत आधार िव्यमान नहीं है। उपरो्व पिरिस्थितयों में िनगरानी बलहीन है, तदैव िनरस्त िकये जाने योग्य है। िनगरानीकतार् ्षारा दािखल िनगरानी िनरस्त की जाती है। िव्षान न्याियक मिजस््िेट ्षारा हस्तगत ्ऺकरण में पािरत ्ऺश्नगत आदेश िद० 12.07.2017 की पुि्ि की जाती है। आदेश की एक ्ऺित के साथ मिजस््िेट न्यायालय की प्ऴावली अिवलम्ब वापस ्ऺेिषत की जाए, जहां प्षकार िद० 15.10.2018 को अि्षम कायर्वाही हेतु उपिस्थत हों।"

5. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that indulgence in the matter is required. (i) It is for the reason that the allegations in the complaint made by the opposite party No.2 have been levelled just to harass the entire family of Aftab Ahmad (husband of Nagma Bano, daughter of opposite party No.2). (ii) The allegations made in the complaint have been levelled after a matrimonial dispute was settled between the parties, as is evident from the deed of compromise dated 18.12.2016 and the contents of which have not been refuted/impeached by the side opposite. (iii) The allegations in the complaint with regard to the qualification of the husband Aftab Ahmad appears to be vague. 5 CRLP No. 11910 of 2019

6. Taking note of aforesaid as well as the law on the issue, this Court is of the view that the petitions are liable to be allowed. Accordingly both the petitions [Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.11910 of 2019 (Aftab Ahmad and others Vs. State of U.P. and another) and Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.9942 of 2019 (Farooq Ahmad and others Vs. State of U.P. and another)] are allowed.

7. The entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint No.67 of 2017 (Mohd. Halim Vs. Aftab Ahmad and others), under Sections 419, 420, 323, 504 I.P.C., pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Court No.20, Sultanpur are hereby quashed. October 16, 2025 ML/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Case called out in revised list. Larned counsel for the petitioners Shri Puneet Tripathi and Shri Mohammad Jahid, Advocates are present. No one appeared on behalf opposite party No.2 though name of Ms Dipika Singh and Shri Saytendra Nath Mishra, Advocates, have been printed in the cause list. However, learned A.G.A. is present for the State.

2. It is to be noted that the matter relates to the year 2019 and during the pendency of the proceedings both the parties have settled the matter amicably and entered into a compromise. Therefore, in this background of 2 CRLP No. 11910 of 2019 the case, this court proceeded to decide the case finally.

3. In both the writ petitions the summoning order dated 12.07.2017, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Court No.20, Sultanpur (in short "trial court") and the order dated 25.09.2018, passed by the IIIrd Additional Session Judge, Sultanpur (in short "revisional court") in Criminal Revision No.299 of 2017 (Mohd. Aftab and others Vs. State of U.P. and another) have been challenged and the prayer for quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint No.67 of 2017 (Mohd. Halim Vs. Aftab Ahmad and others) has been sought. As such both the petitions are being decided by a common order.

4. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this court finds that the following facts would be relevant for deciding the petitions indicated above. (i) The marriage of Nagma Bano (daughter of opposite party No.2) was solemnized with Aftab Ahmad (petitioner No.1 in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.11910 of 2019) on 24.09.2016 according to Muslim rites and rituals. (ii) According to the opposite party No.2 various articles were provided to the couple in the marriage ceremony. (iii) Nagma Bano, daughter of the opposite party No.2, on account of matrimonial dispute/discord left the company of her husband Aftab Ahmad on 27.10.2016. (iv) On 18.12.2016, the parties amicably settled their disputes and the same appears from the deed of compromise dated 18.12.2016, annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the petition. (v) The compromise deed dated 18.12.2016 indicates that Nagma Bano, daughter of opposite party No.2, and Aftab Ahmed, husband of Nagma Bano, put their signatures in the presence of Mohd. Halim, Nafisur Rahman, Ansar Ali, Hamid Khan and Mukhtar Ahmed. (vi) The compromise deed dated 18.12.2016, further indicates that the amount to the tune of Rs.7, 25,000 was provided to the second party to the deed namely Nagma Bano, daughter of opposite party no.2. Rs. 25,000/- was provided for sustenance during the Iddat period, as Nagma was divorced by Aftab Ahmed, and this fact is also apparent from the "Talaq Nama" dated 18.12.2016, annexed at page No. 43 to this petition. (vii) The deed of compromise dated 18.12.2016 also indicates that the entire "jewellery" was also handed over to Nagma Bano, daughter of 3 CRLP No. 11910 of 2019 opposite party No.2, wife of Aftab Ahmed (petitioner No.1 in Writ Petition No.11910 of 2019). (viii) It would be relevant to indicate at this stage that the compromise deed, indicated above, has not been impeached by the opposite party No.2. (ix) After execution of the deed of compromise dated 18.12.2016, the opposed party No.2 filed a complaint dated 20.02.2017, in the court of competent jurisdiction at District - Sultanpur, making allegations therein to attract the offenses under sections 419, 420, 323, 504 IPC. (x) The complaint was filed by the opposite party No. 2 impleading Aftab Ahmed (husband), Afzal Ahmed (brother-in-law), Ahmadi Begum (mother-in-law), Shameem Fatima (Jethani), Farooq Ahmed (cousin father-in-law), Ansar Ahmed (cousin father-in-law), Uzra (cousin mother- in-law) and Jamal Ahmed (friend/mediator) as opposite parties. (xi) Thereafter, the Magistrate concerned passed the order dated

12.07.2017, whereby the petitioners namely Aftab, Afzal Ahmad, Ahmadi, Shameem Fatima, Mohammad Jamal, Farooq Ahmed, Ansar Ahmed and Uzra were summoned. (xii) Being aggrieved by the order dated 12.07.2017, the petitioners filed a criminal revision, registered as Criminal Revision No.299 of 2017 (Aftab Ahmed and 7 others vs. State of UP and another). This revision was dismissed by the learned IIIrd Additional Session Judge, Sultanpur (in short ‘Revisional Court’) vide order dated 25.09.2018. The relevant portion of the order dated 25.092018, whereby the Revisional Court dismissed the revision and affirmed the order passed by the Magistrate dated 12.07.2017, reads as under:- "हस्तगत मामले में िनगरानीकतार्गण की ओर से कोई बहस हेतु उपिस्थत नहीं आया। िवप्षी मय िव्षान अिधव्वा उपिस्थत रहा। अतः िनगरानी का गुण दोष पर िनस्तारण िनगरानी यािचका में िलये गये आधारों एवं िवप्षी ्षारा ्ऺस्तुत तकों के ्ऺकाश में िकया जा रहा है। प्ऴावली के पिरशीलन से यह ्ऺकट होता है िक हस्तगत िनगरानी के िवप्षी सं० 2 मोहम्मद हलीम ्षारा िनगरानीकतार्गण आफताब अहमद, अफजाल अहमद, अहमदी बेगम, शमीम फाितमा उफर् गुल्लू, फारूख अहमद, अन्सार अहमद, उजरा, जमाल अहमद अन्सारी को नािमत करते हुए पिरवाद प्ऴ ्ऺस्तुत िकया गया। मुकदमे की कायर्वाही के दौरान न्यायालय ्षारा धारा-200 दं०्ऺ०सं० के अधीन पिरवादी मो० हलीम का बयान एवं धारा-202 दं०्ऺ०सं० के अधीन पी०डब्लू०-1 नगमा बानो, पी०डब्लू0-2 मो० करीम एवं पी०डब्लू०-3 मो० आफताब का बयान अंिकत िकया गया। िव्षान न्याियक मिजस््िेट ने मामले की सुनवाई कर अपने सम्ष उपलब्ध साम्षी के 4 CRLP No. 11910 of 2019 आधार पर ्ऺश्नगत आदेश के माध्यम से िनगरानीकतार्गण को धारा-419, 420, 323, 504 भा०दं०सं० के अपराध हेतु िवचारणाथर् आहूत िकया। यह सुस्थािपत िविधक िस्थित है िक िकसी ्िि्व को िकसी अपराध के िवचारण हेतु आहूत िकये जाने के स्तर पर उस स्तर की साष्य संवी्षा अपेि्षत नहीं है, िजस स्तर की साष्य संवी्षा मुकदमे के अ्षेतर ्ऺकरण पर यथा आरोप िवरून अथवा मुकदमे के गुण दोष के आधार पर अिन्तम िनस्तारण के स्तर पर अपेि्षत होती है। िवचारणाथर् आहूत िकये जाने के स्तर पर मिजस््िेट को मा्ऴ यह देखना होता है िक उपलब्ध साम्षी के आधार पर िकसी ्िि्व/्िि्वयों के िवरू्ध पिरवािदत िकये गये अपराध का ्ऺथम दृ्िया मामला बनता है अथवा नहीं एवं कायर्वाही हेतु अ्षसर होने हेतु ्ऺथम दृष््िा साष्य उपलब्ध है अथवा नहीं। यिद अपने सम्ष उपलब्ध तथ्यों, साष्यों के आधार पर वह यह पाता है िक कायर्वाही हेतु अ्षसर होने के िलए पयार्प्त ्ऺथम दृ्िया साष्य उपलब्ध है तो वह उन ्िि्व/्िि्वयों को उन धाराओं के अपराध हेतु िवचारणाथर् आहूत करता है। हस्तगत ्ऺकरण में रेस्पॉन्डेन्ट सं०-2 ्षारा पिरवाद प्ऴ ्ऺस्तुत िकये जाने के उपरान्त सम्बिन्धत मिजस््िेट ्षारा पिरवादी एवं उसके सा्षीगण का दण्ड ्ऺि्वया संिहता के अध्याय-15 के अधीन धारा 200 व 202 के अधीन बयान अंिकत िकया गया। अपने सम्ष उपलब्ध साम्षी को िवचार में लेते हुए िव्षान न्याियक मिजस््िेट ने आ्षेिपत तलबी आदेश पािरत िकया है। पिरवादी एवं पिरवादी के साि्षयों के बयानों से उन धाराओं के अपराध का ्ऺथम दृ्िया मामला िनगरानीकतार्गण के िवरू्ध बनता है, िजन धाराओं के अपराध के िलए उन्हें िवचारणाथर् आहूत िकया गया है। िनगरानीकतार्गण ्षारा आ्षेिपत आदेश के िवरू्ध, जो तकर् ्ऺस्तुत िकये गये हैं, वे मुकदमे के अ्षेतर ्ऺकरण पर महत्वपूणर् एवं सुसंगत हो सकते हैं, िकन्तु इस स्तर पर उनके आधार पर आ्षेिपत आदेश को अपास्त नहीं िकया जा सकता। उपरो्व समी्षा एवं िववेचना के आधार पर इस न्यायालय के िवचार में िव्षान न्याियक मिजस््िेट ्षारा पािरत आ्षेिपत आदेश िदनांिकत 12.07.2017 में िकसी ्ऺकार की िनयम ्ऺितकू लता, िविध िवरू्धता अथवा ्षे्ऴािधकार सम्बन्धी ्ऴुिट िव्यमान नहीं है। िव्षान न्याियक मिजस््िेट ्षारा पािरत आदेश तथ्य, िविध एवं साष्य रो समिथत है। तदनुसार उ्व आदेश में हस्त्षेप िकये जाने का कोई युि्वयु्व अथवा तकर् संगत आधार िव्यमान नहीं है। उपरो्व पिरिस्थितयों में िनगरानी बलहीन है, तदैव िनरस्त िकये जाने योग्य है। िनगरानीकतार् ्षारा दािखल िनगरानी िनरस्त की जाती है। िव्षान न्याियक मिजस््िेट ्षारा हस्तगत ्ऺकरण में पािरत ्ऺश्नगत आदेश िद० 12.07.2017 की पुि्ि की जाती है। आदेश की एक ्ऺित के साथ मिजस््िेट न्यायालय की प्ऴावली अिवलम्ब वापस ्ऺेिषत की जाए, जहां प्षकार िद० 15.10.2018 को अि्षम कायर्वाही हेतु उपिस्थत हों।"

5. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that indulgence in the matter is required. (i) It is for the reason that the allegations in the complaint made by the opposite party No.2 have been levelled just to harass the entire family of Aftab Ahmad (husband of Nagma Bano, daughter of opposite party No.2). (ii) The allegations made in the complaint have been levelled after a matrimonial dispute was settled between the parties, as is evident from the deed of compromise dated 18.12.2016 and the contents of which have not been refuted/impeached by the side opposite. (iii) The allegations in the complaint with regard to the qualification of the husband Aftab Ahmad appears to be vague. 5 CRLP No. 11910 of 2019

6. Taking note of aforesaid as well as the law on the issue, this Court is of the view that the petitions are liable to be allowed. Accordingly both the petitions [Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.11910 of 2019 (Aftab Ahmad and others Vs. State of U.P. and another) and Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.9942 of 2019 (Farooq Ahmad and others Vs. State of U.P. and another)] are allowed.

7. The entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint No.67 of 2017 (Mohd. Halim Vs. Aftab Ahmad and others), under Sections 419, 420, 323, 504 I.P.C., pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Court No.20, Sultanpur are hereby quashed. October 16, 2025 ML/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench