Allahabad High Court

ZAREEF AHMAD AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 14 September 2026
Bench: DEEPAK VERMA

Holding

The Court held that a prima facie offence is made out against the applicants and therefore the application to quash the complaint is dismissed.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Uttar Pradesh Code of Criminal Procedure (BNSS) and the inherent powers of the High Court (Section 482 CrPC) seeking to quash Complaint No. 111 of 2022, which alleged that they robbed a motorist under Section 392 IPC. The applicants claimed the complaint was malicious, asserted an alibi that one of them was hospitalized at the time of the incident, and argued that the magistrate had issued summons without proper consideration. The State opposed, contending that a prima facie case existed. The High Court examined the complainant’s statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC and found that the allegations, if taken at face value, established a prima facie offence. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held there was no ground to quash the proceedings and dismissed the application, while directing that bail applications be dealt with expeditiously if the applicants surrender.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can quash the criminal complaint under its inherent jurisdiction on the ground of lack of prima facie case and alleged malicious prosecution.
Whether the applicants' alibi and claim of hospital admission are sufficient to defeat the prima facie case at the pre‑trial stage.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 200, 202, 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 392
Uttar Pradesh Code of Criminal Procedure (BNSS) — s. 528

Subjects

quash petition
inherent jurisdiction
Section 482 CrPC
Section 528 BNSS
prima facie case
alibi
malicious prosecution
robbery
IPC 392
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14398 of 2022

Zareef Ahmad And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amir Khan, Satish Chandra Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 74
HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

2. The present application u/s 528 BNSS has been filed to quash the to quash
the Complaint Case No. 111 of 2022, under Section 392 IPC, Police Station-
Bilsi, District- Budaun, pending in the court of Special Judge (Dacoity
Effected Area)/Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun as well as summoning
order dated 22.03.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (Dacoity
Effected Area)/Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun.

3. It is alleged that on 19.02.2022 at about 06:00 p.m. when the complainant
was coming from Mirzapur by motorcycle UP 24 AR 2567 then accused
persons standing near Sadhu Panna Lal Degree College and their face were
covered. They pushed the motorcycle of the complainant and one of the
accused person pointed a gun at the complainant and the other accused took
Rs. 12,000/- and a gold ring then complainant make a noise then accused
persons ran away from the spot. Suddenly the cover of the accused persons
removed then the complainant recognized the accused persons. Learned
counsel for the applicants further submits that the present complaint has
lodged with malicious intention only to harass the applicants. Learned
Magistrate without considering the matter on facts, issued summons. The
present complaint has lodged in counter as applicant no. 2 filed a complaint
on 26.03.2021 being complaint case no. 276/2021. He next submits that
applicant no. 2 was not present on the spot as he was admitted in hospital
which is evident from the annexure-7 to the application, the discharge slip,
A482 No. 14398 of 2022
2

issued by the hospital. He next submits that the statements recorded u/s 200
and 202 Cr.P.C. and contents of complaint discloses that no offence under
the aforesaid section is made. Summoning by learned Magistrate and
prosecution against the applicant is liable to be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submission raised by applicant's
counsel and submits that prima facie offence is made out against the
applicants hence, applicants are not entitled for relief as prayed.

5. This Court vide order dated 08.08.2022 stayed the proceeding of the
present case and issued notice to the opposite party no. 2. As per the office
report dated 16.11.2022, notice issue to the opposite party no. 2 and served
personally but no one appears on his behalf.

6. Since 2022, the present proceeding is pending before the Court and by
various orders, impugned order has been extended. On perusal of contents
of complaint, the allegation against the applicants is that they robbed the
complainant when he was coming from Mirzapur by motorcycle. The
statements recorded u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. are supporting the contents
of complaint. The statement of complainant recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. is
quoted hereinbelow:-

"नाम- जमालउद्दीन उर्फ नन्हू पुत्र रियासत उम्र 52 वर्ष, पेशा -व्यापार, पता थाना व कस्बा-
बिल्सी, बदायूँ ने सशपथ बयान किया कि -
लगभग 19.02.2022 को समय 06.00 बजे शाम नन्हू मै व मेरी पत्नी आयशा मोटर
साइकिल यू०पी० 24 ए०आर०-2567 से ग्राम मिर्जापुर से अपने घर आ रहा था मै मोटर
साइकिल से जैसे ही साधु पन्ना लाल डिग्री कॉलेज से कुछ दूर आया तभी अचानक मोटर
साइकिल पल्सर काले रंग से दो व्यक्ति खड़े हुये मुँह पर अगोछा बांधे हुये मिले और मेरी मोटर
साइकिल को धक्का मारकर गिरा दी मैं और मेरी पत्नी गिर गये तभी मुझ पर एक व्यक्ति ने
तमंचा तान दिया और दूसरे व्यक्ति ने मेरी जेब से 12,000/- रूपये सोने की अंगूठी जरीफ
वगैरा ने लूट ली मारपीट करते समय उन लोगो के मुँह में अगोछे हट गये मैने उन लोगो को
पहचान लिया मेरी चीख पुकार पर राहगीर ताहीर हुसैन पुत्र वाहीद हुसैन आ गये। तभी
मुल्जिमान सहसवान की ओर भाग गये मुल्जिमानो के मुँह से अगोछा हटने के बाद सबने
पहचान लिया मुल्जिमानो के नाम जरीफ अहमद, इरफान, निवासी शहबाजपुर थाना सहसवान
के था मै इन्हें पहले से जानता था। मैने पुलिस थाने को तहरीर उसी दिन दी लेकिन पुलिस ने
रिपोर्ट दर्ज नही की दिनांक 22.02.2022 को घटना के सम्बन्ध मे रजिस्टर्ड डाक से प्रा०पत्र
A482 No. 14398 of 2022
3

दिया था, लेकिन इसके बाद भी पुलिस ने कोई कार्यवाही नही की मजबूर होकर न्यायालय की
शरण मे आया हूँ।"

6. The submission of the counsel for the applicant is that applicant was
admitted in the hospital at the time of the incident and in support it he has
filed admission slip with the application, cannot considered at this stage.
The plea of alibi requires certain evidence for which trial court is
appropriate forum. The Court is in view after examining the record find a
prima face offence is made out against the applicant.

7. In view of the statements recorded u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and the
allegations alleged in the complaint, prima facie, offence is made out
against the applicants, therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant any
relief to the applicants in the present case. No interference is warranted at
this stage.

8. In view of the above, in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in the
matters of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, Manik
B. Vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy and another, 2023 Live Law (SC) 642,
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, no ground for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case, is
made out which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its
inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ 528 BNSS as the same do not
suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

9. The present application u/s 528 BNSS is hereby dismissed with the
aforesaid observation.

10. However, if the applicants surrender before the concerned court within
three weeks from today and applies for bail, their bail applications shall be
decided expeditiously by the court concerned, in accordance with law.

(Deepak Verma,J.)
September 15, 2026
Nisha

Digitally signed by :-
nisha kumari
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…