GAJNAFAR HUSSAIN @ GAAFFAR HUSSASIN AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
             MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2668 of 2026


Gajnafar Hussain @ Gaaffar Hussasin And 2
Others                                                     .....Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)      : Ajay Kumar        Srivastava,    Shivangi
                                 Bhargava
Counsel for Respondent(s)      : G.A.

Court No. - 53
                     HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Manish Kumar Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ajay
Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ajay Singh,
learned AGA-I for the State and perused the material on record.

3. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has
been filed by the petitioners- Gajnafar Hussain @ Gajaffar Hussain,
Mujaffar Hussain and Syad Samad Varsi @ Syed Samad Hussain
, with the prayer to set aside the order dated 07.09.2024 passed by ACJM,
Court No.2, Bareilly in Complaint Case No. 540 of 2023 (Ishrat Jahan Vs.
Gajaffar Hussain and others) as well as order dated 17.12.2025 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge (FTC, Bareilly in Criminal Revision No. 451
of 2024 Computer Case No. UPBR010140732024 (Gajnafar Hussain and
others Vs. State of U.P. and others).

4. The facts of the case are that an application dated 18.07.2023 under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the opposite party no.2 against the
petitioners alleging therein that she has come to know that the accused
had broken the wall of the workshop of her husband and taken away its
bricks. They have also taken away an almirah and also other articles kept
there. On 13.01.2023 at about 02:00 pm when she went to the workshop
she found that the lock previously fixed was broken and the accused have
used their lock. When she asked about it, the accused abused her. Prior to
it, the wife of accused Gajnafar had called her and had taken the
photocopy of the papers of property and had also entered into a scuffle
with her and threatened her. The accused are bhumafia and are trying to
sell the said property. She has apprehension that untoward incident may
take place with her and her children. She gave an application at the police
station and also to the SSP concerned but no action was taken. The said
application was treated as a complaint and the statement of the
                                                              A227 No. 2668 of 2026
                                  2


complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and that of her witnesses Jia Ullah
and Arshi under Section 202 Cr.P.C. as PW-1 and PW-2 were recorded.

5. The trial court concerned then vide its order dated 07.09.2024
summoned the accused petitioners for offences under Sections 452, 379,
323, 504, 506 IPC. A revision against the same was preferred by the
accused which stood dismissed vide judgment and order dated 17.12.2025
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Bareilly. The petitioners
who are the accused are thus before this Court challenging both the said
orders.

6. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case due to long
standing enmity between the parties. It is submitted while placing para 12
of the writ petition that the previously the grandson of the complainant
lodged a First Information Report against the petitioners in which final
report was submitted and the same was accepted vide order dated
17.05.2024 by the trial court concerned. It is submitted that now the
present application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been filed with false
and baseless allegations just to falsely implicate the petitioners. Para 13 of
the affidavit has been placed that the petitioner no.1 is a member of U.P.
Central Waqf Board and due to enmity, the present complaint has been
filed. It is submitted that the petition thus be allowed and the orders
impugned be set aside.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and
petition.

8. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the
records, it is evident that the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
filed by the opposite party no.2 was treated as a complaint. The trial court
conducted the inquiry upon the same and then vide its order dated
07.09.2024 summoned the accused petitioners to face trial. A revision
against the same was preferred which stood dismissed. The law with
regards to quashing of proceedings is trite. The Apex Court in the case of
Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra : (2021) 19
SCC 401 has laid down the guidelines in which the court can interfere.

9. Further , the Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani
Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Another : 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1947 has laid a four-step test for High Courts to follow while considering
petitions for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. It has been held as under:

     “20. The following steps should ordinarily determine the veracity of a
     prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in
     the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:—
                                                                             A227 No. 2668 of 2026
                                        3


          (i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound,

          reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and impeccable

          quality?


          (ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule

          out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e.,

          the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions

          contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a

          reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the

          accusations as false.


          (iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not

          been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such,

          that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?


          (iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of

          process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?


          If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the

          High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal - proceedings, in

          exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such

          exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save

          precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a

          trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear

          that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.

          [(See:Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor (Criminal Appeal No. 174 of

          2013)]”


10. Law for quashing is strict and trite. The present case does not fall
within the category of cases as enumerated in the judgements of Apex
Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. (Supra) and also
on the four-steps test in the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani (Supra).
No ground for interference is made out. It is trite law that at the stage of
quashing only the material of the prosecution has to be seen and the court
cannot delve into the defence of the accused and then proceed to examine
the matter on its merit by weighing the evidence so produced. The
disputed questions of facts of the case cannot be adjudged and adjudicated
at this stage while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and only
the prima facie prosecution case has to be looked into as it is. Evidence
needs to be led to substantiate the defence of the accused. Further it is
also well settled that that while exercising powers under section 482
                                                                                             A227 No. 2668 of 2026
                                                                   4


                                    Cr.P.C., the High Court is not required to conduct a mini trial.

                                    11. In so far as the present case is concerned, the guidelines in the case of
                                    Neeharika (supra) and also the four-step test in the case of Pradeep
                                    Kumar Kesarwani (supra) do not in any manner get satisfied. The order
                                    of the trial court and the revisional court are detailed orders touching the
                                    matter on merits and giving valid reasons.

                                    12. In view of the same, looking to the facts and circumstances, the
                                    present application petition for writ is rejected.

                                    13. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.


                                                                                               (Samit Gopal,J.)
                                    March 19, 2026
                                    M. ARIF




Digitally signed by :-
MOHAMMAD ARIF
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad