Allahabad High Court
TARIQ MANZOOR KHAN RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGEversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The Court set aside the summons and directed that the FIR copy be furnished to the witness and his testimony be taken via video‑conferencing under Section 530 BNSS.
Summary
The retired District Judge Tariq Manzoor Khan, who had filed the original FIR in a case involving sections 467, 468, 420 and 120B IPC, was summoned as a prosecution witness by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj. Khan, now 75 and residing in Pune, argued that the original FIR was not available in the trial court record, rendering his personal appearance futile. Both parties agreed that the narration of the FIR must be proved by Khan himself, but without the original document, the purpose of his summons could not be served. The Court held that a copy of the FIR should be sent to Khan’s residence and that his testimony could be taken via video‑conferencing under Section 530 of the BNSS Act. Consequently, the orders dated 20.02.2026, 13.03.2026 and 17.03.2026 were set aside and the application was allowed with the said directions.
Issues considered
- Whether a prosecution witness can be compelled to appear in person when the original FIR is unavailable.
- Whether Section 528 of the BNSS Act permits the Court to set aside a summons in such circumstances.
- Whether video‑conferencing under Section 530 of the BNSS Act is an appropriate mode for the witness to testify.
Legislation cited
- Bail and Non‑Surrender of Suspects Act — s. 528, 530
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120, 420, 467, 468
Subjects
- prosecution witness
- FIR
- video conferencing
- Section 528 BNSS
- Section 530 BNSS
- senior citizen
- criminal procedure
- remote testimony
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 17252 of 2026
Tariq Manzoor Khan Retired District Judge
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Fatma Anjum, Syed Ahmed Faizan, Sr.
Advocate, Zaheer Asghar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashish Mishra, G.A.
Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Sri Farman Naqvi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Zaheer
Asghar, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Avijit Saxena, learned counsel for
opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for opposite party nos.1 and 3.
2. The instant application has been preferred for challenging the impugned
orders dated 20.02.2026, 13.03.2026 and 17.03.2026 passed by learned
Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj, which is in shape of ensuring
presence of applicant for proving the narration of FIR over which the case
has been registered at Case Crime No.166 of 2001 in pursuance to sections
467, 468, 420, 120B IPC and currently registered as Case No.1760 of 2015
(State vs. Uma Shankar).
3. It is informed by learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that it is the
applicant who preferred the first information report and as such he has been
summoned for proving the same as one of the prosecution witnesses and the
applicant is presently residing at Pune, Maharashtra, aged about 75 years,
after being retired as Additional District Judge from the cadre of Higher
Judicial Services, State of U.P.; being inquired from the applicant with
regard to original copy of FIR available with the record of Case No.1760 of
2015, the same has been replied through questionnaire that original FIR is
not available with the file and the same has been appended at page-25 as
Annexure No.5 to the affidavit filed in support of instant application.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant also submitted that once the
original copy of the FIR is not available with the record, there is hardly any
NA528 No. 17252 of 2026
2
useful purpose served for attaining the court proceedings by the applicant.
5. Sri Avijit Saxena, learned counsel appearing on behalf of High Court,
Allahabad also supported the stand taken up by learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of applicant that the purpose for summoning the
applicant being prosecution witness will not be served if the original copy of
FIR is not available with the learned court concerned.
6. After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the
parties, one thing is crystal clear that the narration of FIR has to be proved
by the applicant himself and as such in any case if the original copy of FIR is
not available, copy available with the learned trial court be provided to the
applicant at his destination, i.e., Q-303, Centria Hills and Dales, near Kad
Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra and the appearance of applicant before learned
trial court during proceedings be ensured through video conferencing, which
is provided under section 530 BNSS.
7. In view of above, impugned orders dated 20.02.2026, 13.03.2026 and
17.03.2026 are hereby set-aside and the instant application stands allowed
in terms of directions as made above.
May 5, 2026
Saif
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…