# Mohammad Ibrahim v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 1487
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-28
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 9348 of 2018
- **Bench:** Harsh Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohammad-ibrahim-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45524
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 482- Disputed
questions of fact, which require evidence,
cannot be adjudicated upon 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.

Application u/s 482 Cr.Pc rejected. (Para 7,8)

Case law discussed:-

## Text

2 All. Mohammad Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1487

31. For the facts and reasons, the
continuation of the prosecution against the
applicants would be illegal and nothing but
an abuse of the process of the Court.

32.

In
view
of
the
above
observations, the application under Section
482 is, accordingly, allowed.

33. Under these circumstances,
charge-sheet dated 26.05.1995, order dated
17.01.2007 as well as the criminal
proceedings in Criminal Case No. 294 of
2004,
under Sections
41/411
I.P.C.,
pending in the Court of Additional Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Court
No.2,
Allahabad, are hereby quashed.
----------
(2020)02ILR A1487

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE HARSH KUMAR, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 9348 of 2018
&
Application U/S 482 No. 11224 of 2018

Mohammad Ibrahim ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri
Sharib
Salaman
Ahmad
Ansari,
A/V0429

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Vinod Singh

A.
Criminal
Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 482- Disputed
questions of fact, which require evidence,
cannot be adjudicated upon 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.

Application u/s 482 Cr.Pc rejected. (Para 7,8)

Case law discussed:-

1. R.P. Kapur Vs. St. of Punj., A.I.R. (1960)
S.C. 866,

2. St. of Har. Vs. Bhajan Lal, (1992) SCC (Cr.)
426,

3. St. of Bih. Vs. P.P.Sharma, (1992) SCC (Cr.)
192

4. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd.
Saraful Haq & anr. (Para-10) (2005) SCC (Cr.)
283.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Harsh Kumar, J.)

1. Photo copy of Nikahnama of
applicant Siftain Khan Qadri @ Sonu filed
by learned counsel for applicants today in
the Court is taken on record.

2. The two applications u/s 482
Cr.P.C. have been moved by two accused
(father and son) separately, which were
heard together and are being disposed of
by one and the same order.

3. Heard Sharib Salaman Ahmad
Ansari learned counsel for applicants, Shri
Vinod Singh learned counsel for opposite
party no.2, learned A.G.A. for State and
perused the record.

4. The application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. No. 9348 of 2018 has been filed
for quashing the entire proceedings of
Case
No.3084
of
2016
(State
vs.
Mohammad
Ibrahim
Khan)
and
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.
11224 of 2018 has been filed for quashing
the entire proceedings of Case No.3356 of
1488 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2017 (State vs. Siftain khan Qadri @
Sonu) both arising out of Case Crime
No.3249 of 2014, under Sections 420, 406
I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun
pending in the Court of C.J.M. Jalaun at
Orai.

5. Learned counsel for applicants
contends
that
applicant
Mohammad
Ibrahim is father and applicant Siftain
Khan Qadri @ Sonu is his son; that
marriage of Siftain Khan Qadri @ Sonu
was settled with opposite party no.2 Smt.
Shazia Begum and engagement ceremony
was performed on 10.3.2013 with the
understanding that marriage/Nikah will be
solemnized on 27.10.2013; that as per
averments made in complaint filed by
Mohd. Usman, the father of opposite party
no.2, applicant Siftain Khan Qadri @ Sonu
and his family members made demand of
Car or Rs.3.00 lacs cash which was
accepted by him and Rs.2.00 lacs were
paid in cash on 21.4.2013 before Salim
Ahmad and Rs.1.00 lac was agreed to be
paid on the day of marriage; that after a
period of two months demand of INDIGO
Car was also made, and he was unable to
comply so dissolved the proposed Nikah
with agreement that both parties will
return the money/articles given by each of
them, but in August, 2013 Siftain khan
Qadri @ Sonu denied to return the money
and articles on which complainant moved
application before S.S.P. Jalaun and sent
notice to applicants on 4.9.2013 through
counsel which was correctly replied by
applicants through their counsel Shri V.K.
Srivastava, Advocate on 15.9.2013 and in
the
meantime
complainant
allegedly
settled marriage (Nikah) of his daughter
Smt. Shazia Begum opposite party no.2
with Mohd. Umar Khan resident of Kabir
Nagar, Orai on 27.10.2013 as Radha
Palace Guest House had been earlier
booked for Nikah of Shazia and upon
getting knowledge of above development,
applicant with an intention to usurp the
money and articles allegedly prepared a
forged Nikahnama of marriage between
Smt. Shazia Begum and Siftain khan Qadri
@ Sonu and with mala fide intention also
filed a petition for restitution of conjugal
rights in the Principal Judge Family Court,
Lucknow, apart from which he also moved
an application for obstructing Nikah
between Smt. Shazia Begum and Mohd.
Umar Khan and in order to misguide
Mohd. Umar Khan sent him a copy of
forged Nikahnama; that all the allegations
made in complaint case are absolutely
false and incorrect; that in complaint case,
Magistrate passed summoning order on
18.9.2015 and in the meantime opposite
party no.2 also lodged F.I.R. against
applicant Siftain khan Qadri @ Sonu on
30.8.2014 with similar allegations at Case
Crime No.3249 of 2014 upon which
applicants
seeking
quashing
of
proceedings of summoning order dated
18.9.2015 under Sections 406, 467, 468
and 471 I.P.C. moved an application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.1953 of 2016,
copy at A-8 which was disposed of on
10.2.2016
by
refusing
to
quash
summoning order or proceedings of the
complaint
case
and
directing
the
Magistrate for taking recourse of the
provisions of Section 210 Cr.PC.; that in
furtherance
of
above
order
dated
10.2.2016 passed by this Court, the
learned Magistrate exercising powers
under Section 210 Cr.P.C. merged the
proceedings complaint case in case crime
no.3249 of 2014 in which separate charge
sheets
have
been
submitted
against
applicants under Section 420 and 406
I.P.C. on the basis of which upon taking of
cognizance by Magistrate on 8.9.2016 and
31.7.201`7, at A-12 in each application
2 All. Mohammad Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1489
Criminal Case No.3084 of 2016 and
Criminal Case No.3356 of 2017 is pending
against applicants; that the real fact is that
opposite party no.2 made a proposal to
applicants that Nikah ceremony should be
performed on 21.8.2013 because his son
was going out of country for earning
livelihood, so that relationship may
become firm between two families and
accordingly Nikah was performed between
Smt. Shazia Begum and Siftain khan Qadri
@
Sonu
on
21.8.2013
with
the
understanding that Vidai would be done
after return of applicant Siftain Khan
Qadri @ Sonu from foreign and if Siftain
khan Qadri @ Sonu could not go out of
country for any reason whatsoever Vidai
of opposite party no.2 would be performed
on 27.10.2013; that since the parents of
opposite party no.2 turned dishonest, they
kept all valuables and made a complaint to
S.P. Jalaun with regard to demand of
dowry so the applicant Siftain khan Qadri
@ Sonu had to file a petition for restitution
of conjugal rights in the Court of Principal
Judge
Family
Court,
Lucknow
on
11.10.2013,
copy
at A-1;
that
the
Nikahnama between applicant Siftain khan
Qadri @ Sonu and opposite party no.2
Smt. Shazia Begum, Mohammad Ibrahim
is genuine one & not forged on which
Mohammad Ibrahim the father of Siftain
khan Qadri @ Sonu is not a witness, so in
any case he may not be considered to be
involved in fabricating forged Nikahnama
of marriage between applicant Siftain khan
Qadri @ Sonu and opposite party no.2
Smt. Shazia Begum; that no offence under
Section 420 is made out against applicants
or
in
any
case
against
applicant
Mohammad Ibrahim; that applicants have
not committed any criminal breach of trust
and have not usurped any money of
opposite party no.2 or her father so no
offence under Section 406 I.P.C. is made
out against them; that in fact applicants
had paid Rs.1,85,000/- and Rs.10,000/- to
father of opposite party no.2 for getting it
prepared jewelry for opposite party no.2;
that even if for the sake of arguments all
the allegations made by opposite party
no.2 are accepted no offence is made out
against applicants and at the most of only
offence under Section 4 of D.P. Act may
be made out against applicants; that
otherwise also in case of preparation of
forged Nikahnama provisions of Sections
467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. must be attracted
but no charge sheet has been filed under
above Sections; that the prosecution of
applicants is totally unwarranted and is
liable to be quashed.

6. Per contra learned A.G.A. and
learned counsel for opposite party no.2
vehemently opposed the prayer made in
two applications u/s 482 Cr.P.C. The
learned counsel for opposite party no.2
contended that complaint case was filed
with absolutely correct allegations and the
applicants may have no grievance with
regard to lodging of F.I.R. by opposite
party no.2 because in furtherance of order
of this Court dated 10.2.2016; that on
application
u/s
482
Cr.P.C.
two
proceedings have been merged and there is
no apprehension of double jeopardy to
applicants; that the forgery committed by
applicants is very much clear from the fact
that on 4.9.2013 the father of opposite
party no.2 sent a notice to two applicants
Mohammad Ibrahim and Siftain khan
Qadri @ Sonu, through counsel Shri R.K.
Shukla copy at page 17 of CA-2 of which
reply was sent by applicants through their
counsel Shri V.K. Srivastava, Advocate on
15.9.2013 copy at page 19, A-CA-2; that
in above reply of notice dated 15.9.2013 in
paragraph nos.6 and 7 applicants have not
made any whisper about the alleged Nikah
1490 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
or Nikahnama dated 21.8.2013 between
Siftain khan Qadri @ Sonu and Smt.
Shazia Begum which has been claimed by
applicant Siftain khan Qadri @ Sonu in
paragraph 12 of petition for restitution of
conjugal rights, A-1 rather has tried to
make a counter claim by making counter
allegations of making payment of a sum of
Rs.1,85,000/- to father of opposite party
no.2 for getting jewelry prepared for Smt.
Shazia Begum apart from Rs.10,000/- for
ring on 25.1.2013; that it is wrong to say
that no offences under Sections 406, 420,
467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. is made out
against applicants; that in complaint case
the learned Magistrate after considering
the statements under Sections 200 and 202
Cr.P.C. had passed summoning order under
Section 204 Cr.P.C. summoning the
applicants for offences under Sections 406,
467, 468 and 471 I.P.C.; that if the charge
sheet has been submitted under Sections
406 and 420 I.P.C. it will not be correct to
say that applicants may not be considered
for other offences because it is settled
principle of law that at the time of framing
of charges upon hearing parties counsel, it
may also frame charges for offences under
Sections mentioned in charge sheet or for
different offences under other sections;
that the applications have been moved
with
absolutely
false
and
incorrect
allegations and are liable to be dismissed.

7. Upon hearing parties counsel and
perusal of record and particularly the copy
of reply of notice given by applicants in
reply to notice of father of opposite party
no.2, which is at page 19 of CA-2, it is
very much clear that in the entire reply
there is no averment about alleged
Nikahnama
dated
21.8.2013
between
applicant Siftain khan Qadri @ Sonu and
opposite party no.2 Smt. Shazia Begum.
The contention that Nikahnama dated
21.8.2013 does not bear signature of
Mohd. Ibrahim so he may not be held
guilty for offence under Section 420 I.P.C.
has no force in view of fact that he is none
other than father of Siftain and, whether he
played any role in fabrications of forged
Nikahnama (if the same is found to be
forged), is a matter based on evidence to
be adduced before trial.

8. 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
submissions made at the bar relate to the
disputed questions of fact, which require
evidence and cannot be adjudicated upon by
this Court 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, and the
applicants have failed to prove any prima facie
case.

9. In view of discussions made above, I
have come to the conclusion that learned
counsel for the applicants has failed to show
that there is any abuse of process of court or
likelihood of miscarriage of justice for
prevention of which the exercise of inherent
powers by this Court is required. Both the
applications are devoid of merits and are liable
to be rejected.

10. Both applications u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
are rejected accordingly.

11. However, if the applicants appear
before
the
court
below
and
move
2 All. Pulloo @ Shiv Pratap Vs. State of U.P.
1491
applications for bail, the same shall be
disposed of expeditiously in accordance
with law.

12. Interim order, if any, stands
vacated.
----------
(2020)02ILR A1491

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-IX, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 10193 of 2010

Pulloo @ Shiv Pratap ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Rakesh Prasad

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 300(1) - Is
based on maxim "nemo debet bis vexari",
which means that a person cannot be a
convicted on second time for an offence
which was involved in the offence with
which he was previously charged. In both
the trials incident is the same and they are
based on same prosecution story and
facts. Previous offence was tried by a
competent court in which applicant was
acquitted and the acquittal is in force.
Second trial of the applicant for the same
offence in which he has been acquitted is
barred by Section 300 Cr.P.C.

Where a person has been acquitted in a
trial and a supplementary chargesheet is
again submitted against him on the same
facts, then Section 300 Cr.P.C. bars the
trial of that person again not only for the
same offence but also for any other
offence on the same facts and also applies
to offence for which charges might have
been framed at the previous trial. (Para 10, 13,
15)

Application u/s 482 allowed.

Case law discussed-

1. Thakur Ram Vs. St. of Bih. AIR (1966) SC
911

2. Inguva Mallikarjun Vs. St. of A.P. (1978)
Cr.LJ 392 (DB)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar-IX, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant and learned AGA for the State as
well as perused the record.

2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
has been moved by the applicant Pullo @
Shiv Pratap with prayer to quash the entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No.1048 of
2005 (State Vs. Pullo @ Shiv Pratap),
under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 325,
308, 324 IPC, arising out of Case Crime
No.99 of 2002, Police Station- Handia,
District- Allahabad.

3. Brief facts relating to the case are
that on 18.02.2002 First Information
Report was lodged by the informant Vijayi
as Case Crime No.99 of 2002 in Police
Station-
Handia,
District-
Allahabad
against the accused Ram Raj son of Sri
Nath,
Indramani
son
of
Gangaram
Chauhan, Shiv Mangal son of Indramani,
Pulloo son of Indramani, Indrajeet son of
Gangaram, Dayaram son of Shrinath, Ram
Shiromani son of Shankar, Ramdhani son
of Indraraj and Ramsajivan son of
Indraraj. It was alleged in the said FIR that
all the named accused came at the door of
the informant with weapons in their hands
and assaulted the informant and his family