Allahabad High Court

FARAHEEM AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 24 March 2026
Bench: CHAWAN PRAKASH

Holding

The application under Section 482 CrPC to quash the summoning order is dismissed as no ground to quash exists.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash a summoning order dated 13 June 2024 issued by a Judicial Magistrate in a complaint case under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. They alleged that the complaint was filed to exert pressure in a parallel civil suit concerning property, that no assault occurred, and that the key witness was mentally retarded, rendering his statement unreliable. The State opposed, contending that the complaint, statements, and material collected established a prima facie case. The High Court examined the material and held that the question of whether a prima facie case exists is a matter of fact that cannot be decided at the interlocutory stage under Section 482. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court found no ground to quash the proceedings and dismissed the application. Consequently, the summoning order and the criminal case continue.

Issues considered

Whether the summoning order in a criminal complaint under Section 323 IPC can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC on the ground of lack of prima facie case.
Whether the High Court may interfere with the trial court's assessment of disputed facts and witness credibility at the interlocutory stage.
Whether the testimony of a mentally retarded witness can be disregarded to the extent of negating a prima facie case.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 200, 202, 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 323

Subjects

Section 482 CrPC
quash of criminal proceedings
prima facie case
Section 323 IPC
interlocutory jurisdiction
witness credibility
property dispute

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25090 of 2024

Faraheem And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Tripathi, Surya Prakash Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 81
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for applicants, learned A.G.A. for State and
perused the record. No one is present on behalf of opposite party no.2
despite personal service.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
applicants to quash the summoning order dated 13.06.2024, passed by
learned Judicial Magistrate, Garh Mukteshwar, Hapur, in Complaint Case
No. 834 of 2020, Afsariya v. Faraheem and others, under Section 323 I.P.C.,
Police Station Garh Mukteshwar, District Hapur as well as the entire
proceedings of the aforesaid case.

3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicants that opposite
party no.2 is mother of applicant no.1. Applicant no.1 filed a civil suit
bearing No. 58 of 2020, Faraheem v. Afsariya before the learned Civil Judge
(Junior Division), Garhmukteshwar, District Hapur for permanent injunction
and not to sale the property in dispute. The learned Civil Judge restrained the
parties to sell the disputed property. Thereafter, in order to make pressure
upon the applicants, opposite party no.2 filed the present compliant
regarding the incident dated 23.09.2020 against the applicants, whereas no
such incident occurred at that time. The applicants have never beaten the
opposite party no.2 nor pressed her neck. Further, no medical report has
been submitted with the complaint. The opposite party no.2 got herself
examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses Chand and Shabana
under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate has not taken into
A482 No. 25090 of 2024
2

consideration the statements of complainant and witnesses properly and
summoned the applicants under Section 323 I.P.C., whereas no prima facie
case is made out against the applicants. It is further submitted that Chand
(PW-1) is a mentally retarded person and not in a position to give any
statement, therefore, his statement is not trustworthy but the learned Trial
Court has not considered the said fact, therefore, the summoning order as
well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid case may be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the perusal of the
allegations made in the complaint, the statements of the complainant and
witnesses and the material collected during the course of investigation,
prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants and as such,
entire proceedings cannot be quashed.

5. As per record, opposite party no.2 filed a compliant against the applicants
regarding the incident dated 23.09.2020, in which she has made an allegation
that the applicants have beaten her and pressed her neck. The opposite party
no.2 got herself examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses Chand
and Shabana under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate
has summoned the applicants under Section 323 I.P.C.

6. 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
applicants. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed
question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise
of power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any
ground to quash the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing
the same is hereby refused.
A482 No. 25090 of 2024
3

8. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

(Chawan Prakash,J.)
March 25, 2026
Vijay

Digitally signed by :-
VIJAY KUMAR SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…