Allahabad High Court
NADEM MIANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- TEJ PRATAP TIWARI
Holding
The appellate court held that the trial court erred by not conducting the statutorily required enquiry, and therefore set aside its order.
Summary
The appellant, Nadem Mian, filed a criminal appeal under Section 380 of the B.N.S.S.S. challenging an order dated 14‑11‑2025 of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.2, Bareilly, which had dismissed an application filed under Section 379 read with Section 215 of the B.N.S.S.S. The appellant contended that the trial court failed to follow mandatory procedure by not obtaining a report from the District Inspector of Schools nor examining the salary register of the institution, thereby denying a proper enquiry. The State opposed, asserting that the trial court's order was correct. Relying on precedents such as Amarsang Nathaji v. Hardik Harshabhai Patel (2016 AIR SC 5384) and State of Punjab v. Jasbir Singh (Criminal Appeal No.335 of 2020), the High Court held that the procedural lapse warranted interference. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the trial court to rehear the application with an opportunity of hearing within two months. The appeal was therefore allowed and the case was disposed of pending fresh consideration by the lower court.
Issues considered
- The trial court's failure to obtain a report from the District Inspector of Schools and the salary register constituted a procedural violation under Section 379 read with Section 215 of the B.N.S.S.S.
- Whether the appellate court can set aside the trial court's order under Section 380 of the B.N.S.S.S.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S.S. — s. 215, 379, 380
Subjects
- criminal appeal
- procedural lapse
- enquiry requirement
- Section 379
- Section 215
- Section 380
- remand
- family court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3200 of 2026
Nadem Mian
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Rahul Kumar Tiwari, Sandeep Kumar,
Vijai Shanker Tripathi, Vinod Shankar
Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 92
HON'BLE TEJ PRATAP TIWARI, J.
1. Heard Sri Vinod Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
2. The instant criminal appeal under Section 380 of B.N.S.S.S. has been filed
by the appellant to set aside the impugned judgement and order dated
14.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court
No.2, Bareilly in Case No.1576 of 2024 (Nadeem Mian Versus Fareen
Siddiqui) under Section 379 read with Section 215 B.N.S.S., Police Station
Kotwali, District Bareilly.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant contended that
learned court below has not followed the procedure while rejecting the
application under Section 379 read with Section 215 B.N.S.S. It is further
argued that the learned trial court was under legal obligation to make enquiry
by calling report from the concerned District Inspector of Schools as well as
salary register of the institution but nothing has been done in the matter.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant relied on
the case laws of Amarsang Nathaji as Himself and as Karta and
Manager Versus Hardik Harshabhai Patel and others, 2016 AIR
Supreme Court 5384 and The State of Punjab Versus Jasbir Singh in
Criminal Appeal No.335 of 2020 decided on 15.09.2022.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the argument of learned counsel
for the accused-appellant and has submitted that the impugned order passed
by the learned trial court is just and proper and does not call for any
interference by this Court.
5. Having heard submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and
CRLA No. 3200 of 2026
2
perused the material on records, the impugned judgement and order dated
14.11.2025 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court
No.2, Bareilly is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial court
concerned to decide the application moved by the appellant under Section
379 read with Section 215 B.N.S.S. afresh giving opportunity of hearing to
the learned counsel for the appellant within a period of two months from the
production of a certified copy of this order before it.
6. Accordingly, the matter is disposed of finally
May 14, 2026
MN/-
(Tej Pratap Tiwari,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MAHENDRA NATH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…