Moin Abbas Zaidi And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another

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 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 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