Allahabad High Court

MORDHAJ AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 23 March 2026
Bench: CHAWAN PRAKASH

Holding

The High Court held that the magistrate had correctly found a prima facie case and the application for quash under Section 528 CrPC was dismissed.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking to quash a summoning order dated 27 September 2024 and the pending criminal proceedings (Complaint Case No. 294 of 2024) against them for offences under Sections 354, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. They alleged that the complaint was a retaliatory false case arising from a family dispute linked to a suicide and that no prima facie offence existed. The opposite party contended that the applicants had attempted to rape her and later assaulted her during a Panchayat, supporting the charge with statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC. The High Court examined whether the magistrate’s order could be set aside at the pre‑trial stage and held that the question of defence is a factual dispute that cannot be decided under Section 528, and that the magistrate was justified in finding a prima facie case as per the Supreme Court precedents on Section 482 CrPC. Consequently, the court refused to quash the order and dismissed the application.

Issues considered

Whether the summoning order and the criminal proceeding can be quashed under Section 528 CrPC.
Whether a prima facie case exists against the applicants warranting the summons.
Whether the High Court can interfere with the magistrate’s decision at the pre‑trial stage under Section 482 CrPC.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 200, 202, 482, 528
Indian Penal Code — s. 306, 323, 354, 376, 406, 420, 504, 506, 511

Subjects

Section 528 CrPC
quash of criminal proceeding
prima facie case
Section 482 CrPC
dowry harassment
false complaint
magistrate's summoning order

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 3915 of 2025

Mordhaj And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jai Prakash Prasad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Suneel Kumar Mishra

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

1. Heard Sri Jai Prakash Prasad, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Suneel
Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and learned
A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed for
quashing/setting aside the impugned summoning order dated 27.9.2024
passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court Room
No.1, Rampur as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.294 of
2024 (Smt. Kamlesh Vs. Mordhaj and others) under Sections 354, 323,
504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Shahbad, District-Rampur, pending in the
court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court Room No.1, Rampur.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that father of applicant No.1
lodged a First Information Report on 20.111.2022 against five persons
including the opposite party No.2 under Section 306 I.P.C. as Case Crime
No.281 of 2023 in respect of occurrence of offence took place on
16.11.2023. The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation
filed charge sheet against three persons including opposite party No.2. It
is further submitted that the marriage of opposite party No.2 was
solemnized with the Nekpal who was brother of applicant No.1. It is
alleged that the brother of applicant No.1 Nekpal committed suicide due
to harrassement of opposite party No.2 and her family members. It is next
submitted that the present complaint has been filed by opposite party No.2
as a counterblast and with an ulterior motive to pressurize the applicants,
NA528 No. 3915 of 2025
2

opposite party No. 2 filed a false and baseless complaint case against the
applicant No.1 (Devar) and applicant No.2 (Nandoai), Smt. Rajesh
(mother-in-law) and Sunita (Nanand) under Sections 376, 511, 406, 420,
323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. with respect to an alleged incident dated
14.05.2024, whereas no such incident ever took place. It is further
submitted that the complainant was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C.,
and his witnesses, namely, Ramautar and Rai Singh, were examined
under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate summoned
the applicant No.1 (Devar) and applicant No.2 (Nandoai) under
Sections 354, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. It is contended that prima facie no
offence is made out against the applicants. The learned Magistrate failed
to properly appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and has
committed illegality in passing the impugned summoning order without
due application of judicial mind. Hence, the impugned order suffers from
manifest illegality and is liable to be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has opposed the
submissions advanced on behalf of the applicants. It is contended that
opposite party No.2 filed a complaint against the applicants and two other
persons in respect of the incident dated 14.05.2024, wherein it has been
alleged that about 20 days prior to the said incident, the applicants had
attempted to rape her. It has further been alleged that on 14.05.2025, a
Panchayat was held, wherein the applicants, along with her mother-in-law
(Smt. Rajesh) and sister-in-law (Sunita) assaulted opposite party No.2 and
threatened to kill her if she demanded return of her stridhan or dowry
articles. It is further submitted that the complainant has narrated the entire
facts in the complaint and has supported the same in his statement
recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and her witnesses have also
supported the prosecution version in their statements recorded under
Section 202 Cr.P.C. On the basis of the complaint and the statements
recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., as well as the material
available on record, the learned Magistrate has rightly summoned the
applicants. Therefore, the present application is liable to be dismissed.

5. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the allegation against
the applicants is that about 20 days prior to the incident dated 14.05.2024,
they had attempted to rape opposite party No.2. It is further alleged that
NA528 No. 3915 of 2025
3

on 14.05.2025, a Panchayat was held, wherein the applicants, along with
her mother-in-law (Smt. Rajesh) and sister-in-law (Sunita), assaulted
opposite party No.2 and threatened to kill her if she demanded return of
her stridhan or dowry articles.. The complainant was examined under
Section 200 Cr.P.C., and the witnesses, namely, Ramautar and Rai Singh,
were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate formed
an opinion that a prime facie offence is made out against the applicants
and summoned the applicants under Sections 354, 323, 504 and
506 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.

8. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

(Chawan Prakash,J.)
March 24, 2026
Md Faisal

Digitally signed by :-
MOHD FAISAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…