MOIN ABBAS ZAIDI AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 18841 of 2026

Moin Abbas Zaidi And 2 Others
                                                            .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)             :   Mujeeb Haider, Rahul Saxena
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)        :   G.A.

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

     1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants; learned AGA for the
     State and perused the material available on record.

     2. The present application has been filed to quash the order dated
     28.3.2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track
     Court), Bareilly in Criminal Revision No. 324 of 2025 (Moin
     Abbas Zaidi & others Vs. Aleena and another) as well as order
     dated 16.5.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 2, Aonla,
     Bareilly in Complaint Case No. 1994 of 2024 (Aleena Vs. Moin
     Abbas Zaidi & others), under sections 498A, 323 IPC & section
     3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sirauli, District
     Bareilly, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Aonia,
      Bareilly.

     3. Counsel for the applicant submitted that applicants are
     innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case.
     The applicant no. 1 is husband and other applicants are in-laws of
     opposite party no.2. The allegation of demand of dowry is false,
     baseless and not supported by any evidence. The summoning
     order passed by learned Magistrate, is without application of
     judicial mind and the same is liable to be quashed.

     4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State submitted that
     considering the material evidences and allegations against the
     applicants on record, as on date, as per prosecution case, the
                                                   NA528 No. 18841 of 2026
                            2


cognizable offence against the applicants is made out. Under the
facts and circumstances of the present case as well as materials
on record against the applicants, the criminal proceedings against
the applicants cannot be said to be abuse of process of Court.
There is no illegality in the impugned summoning order and
instant application is liable to be dismissed.

5. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perusing the entire record, this Court is of the view that it is well
settled that the appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial
court. This Court in exercise of power under Section 528 BNSS
cannot assume such jurisdiction and put an end to the process of
trial provided under the law. It is also settled by the Apex Court
in catena of judgments that the power under Section 528 BNSS at
pre-trial stage should not be used in a routine manner but it has to
be used sparingly, only in such an appropriate case, where on the
face of record, the criminal proceeding is clear abuse of the
process of the Court. The disputed questions of facts and defence
of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at this pre-trial
stage.

6. It is also well settled that at the stage of summoning the
accused, the court concerned is not required to go into the merit
and demerit of the case. Genuineness or otherwise of the
allegation cannot be even determined at the stage of summoning
the accused. There is no good ground to invoke inherent power
under Section 528 BNSS by this Court at this stage. The relief as
claimed by the applicants through this application is refused.

7. So far as husband/ applicant no. 1 is concerned, prima facie,
offence is made out against the applicant no. 1. The prayer to
quash the proceedings is hereby refused, at this stage as the
argument raised by learned counsel for the applicants involves
factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.

8. The defence version of the applicants no. 2 and 3 have to be
considered by the court concerned at the appropriate stage. The
accused/applicants No. 2 and 3 have statutory remedy of moving
                                                                                              NA528 No. 18841 of 2026
                                                                      3


                                           discharge application before the court concerned at the
                                           appropriate stage.

                                           9. Considering the material on record, it is directed that, if
                                           objection/discharge application is filed on behalf of the applicants
                                           no. 2 and 3 through counsel before the court concerned within
                                           two weeks, it is expected that the court concerned will consider
                                           and decide the same expeditiously within a period of two months,
                                           in accordance with law.

                                           10. With the aforesaid observations/directions, this application
                                           under Section 528 BNSS stands disposed of.



                                                                                               (Deepak Verma,J.)
                                    May 7, 2026
                                    Meenu Singh




Digitally signed by :-
MEENU SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad