Allahabad High Court

MOHD LUKMAN ALIAS PULLU AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 20 January 2026
Bench: PADAM NARAIN MISHRA

Holding

The proceeding is a counter‑blast to an earlier complaint, the dispute is civil, and the magistrate failed to appreciate the material, therefore the criminal proceeding is quashed.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS Act seeking to quash Criminal Complaint No. 1824 of 2022 (Afreen Begum v. Mohd. Lukman) which alleged offences under Sections 323, 504 and 354 IPC. The complaint arose out of a property dispute and the magistrate had earlier rejected a Section 156(3) CrPC application on the ground that a civil dispute existed. The applicants argued that the inquiry report under Section 202(1) CrPC and the police report negated any assault or outrage of modesty, that the medical examination was unduly delayed, and that the complaint was a vague counter‑blast to an earlier FIR filed by them. The opposite party contended that she was assaulted, sustained injuries and that the magistrate correctly summoned the applicants after recording statements. The High Court held that the dispute was essentially civil, the inquiry report created reasonable doubt about the criminal allegations, and the magistrate had mechanically issued the summons without appreciating the material. Consequently, the court allowed the Section 528 application and quashed the entire criminal proceeding.

Issues considered

Whether the criminal complaint under Sections 323, 504 and 354 IPC should be quashed on the ground that the dispute is civil in nature
Whether the magistrate erred in treating the matter as a criminal complaint and issuing a summoning order
Whether the application under Section 528 of the BNSS Act is maintainable to quash the proceeding

Legislation cited

Bail and Nisi (BNSS) Act — s. 528
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 156(3), 200, 202(1)
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 354, 419, 420, 504

Subjects

property dispute
criminal complaint
quash order
Section 528 BNSS
civil dispute
magistrate error
medical examination delay
counter blast

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 23335 of 2025

Mohd Lukman Alias Pullu And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashish Kumar Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shubham Yadav, Vinay Mishra

Court No. - 82
HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.

1. learned counsel for the applicants has filed rejoinder affidavit,
which is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants,
Sri Vinay Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned
AGA for the State and perused the record.

3. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed
seeking quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 1824
of 2022 (Afreen Begum vs. Mohd. Lukman @ Pullu and others, under
Sections 323, 504, 354 IPC, P.S. Chowk, District Varanasi as well as
proceeding of Criminal Revision No. 255 of 2022 (Afreen Begum vs.
State & others), order dated 13.10.2022 passed by Additional District
& Session Judge, Fast Track Court, Varanasi along with summoning
order dated 03.05.2025, passed by Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Court No. 5, Varanasi, pending before him.

4. Brief facts of the case are that opposite party no. 2 moved an
application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on 16.03.2022 with regard
to incident dated 29.01.2022. On which after receiving police report,
the learned Magistrate rejected the said application by order dated
25.03.2022 on the ground that a civil dispute between the parties is
going on.
NA528 No. 23335 of 2025
2

5. Aggrieved by the same, opposite party no. 2 preferred a Criminal
Revision No. 255 of 2022, which was allowed by the revisional court
vide order dated 13.10.2022 and the matter was remanded for fresh
consideration. Thereafter, learned Magistrate treated the application
as complaint case and recorded the statement of witnesses under
Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and conducted an inquiry under
Section 202 (1) Cr.P.C.

6. Learned counsel for applicants has submitted that present
proceeding is a counter blast to the FIR lodged by applicant no. 1
against opposite party no. 2, in Case Crime No. 50 of 2022, under
Sections 419, 420 IPC, in which charge sheet has already been
submitted against opposite party no. 2. He has further submitted that
inquiry report under Section 202 (1) Cr.P.C. has clearly negate the
allegation made in the complaint and establishes that no offence
under Sections 323, 354 IPC is made out. He has further submitted
that the medical examination has been conducted on 31.01.2022
after delay of two days' while the incident is said to have been taken
place on 29.01.2022. He has further submitted that dispute between
the parties are in civil in nature and complaint has been filed against
as many as 12 persons in vague and only in omnibus manner without
any specific role assigning to the applicants.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has submitted
that in present case applicants have assaulted opposite party no. 2
on 29.01.2022 as a result of which opposite party no. 2 sustained 5
injuries. The opposite party no. 2 went to police station on
30.01.2022, but the police has neither lodged the FIR nor sent her for
medical examination. Opposite party no. 2 is the daughter of Mohd.
Akaram and after death of her father, the applicants are trying to
forcibly expelled opposite party no. 2 from her ancestral house. He
has further submitted that the learned Magistrate on 13.05.2025
NA528 No. 23335 of 2025
3

summoned the applicant after recording statements under Sections
200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and after conducting inquiry under Section 202
(1) Cr.P.C. The version of complaint and ground taken by the
applicant cannot be adjudicated at this stage.

8. Having considered the rival submission of the applicants and
perused the record, this Court find that the dispute between the
parties primarily arises out of property dispute. The inquiry conducted
under Section 202 (1) Cr.P.C. including the report of police dated
24.03.2022 negate the occurrence of of mar-peet or outrage of
modesty as alleged by the complainant in a complaint whether only
minor altercation occurred. Further unexplained in delay in medical
examination create doubt regarding prosecution version. The present
proceeding is counter blast to the earlier complaint lodged by
applicant no. 1. In the present case, the learned Magistrate has failed
to appreciate the material on record and has passed summoning
order in mechanical manner.

9. In view of the above, the present application under Section 528
BNSS is allowed.

10. The entire proceeding of aforesaid case is, hereby quashed.

January 21, 2026
v.k. updh.
(Padam Narain Mishra,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…