Allahabad High Court
Iqbal Ahmad And 8 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. The Addl. Prin. Secy. ... on 20 May, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:36191
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3924 of 2026
Iqbal Ahmad And 8 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. The Addl. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Pawan Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 15
HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.
1. This application has been filed with the following main reliefs:
"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned charge sheet dated 19.07.2024 bearing (Charge Sheet No-1), arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No.108, Under Sections: 188 I.P.C., pertaining to Police Station: Sonwa, District -Shrawasti as well as Cognizance/Summoning order dated 09.01.2026 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C. / Judicial Magistrate, District-Shrawasti in Criminal Case No.81/2026 (State Versus Iqbal Ansari & Others) including entire criminal proceeding initiated in pursuance thereof so for its relates to petitioners only.
It is also prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the further proceeding of Criminal Case No.81/2026 (State Versus Iqbal Ansari & Others), arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No.108, Under Sections: 188 I.P.C., pertaining to Police Station: Sonwa, District-Shrawasti, pending before learned Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District-Shrawasti, during pendency of the instant petition in the interest of justice."
2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that an FIR has been lodged by O.P.No-2 on the basis of false and fabricated story on 25.04.2024 at about 18.42 Hours with regard to the incident, which is said to have been taken place on 23.05.2024 at about 18.30 hours, which has been lodged at F.I.R./Case Crime No.108/2024, under Section-188 I.P.C. at Police Station-Sonwa, District-Shrawasti. The prosecution story in brief are that on 23.05.2024 at about 18.30 hours on receiving information about the arrival of former minister Yasar Shah (S.Party) at a public place near the platform for keeping Tazia built near the house of Atiqur son of Chand Ali under village-Dikauli, Dr. Iqbal Ansari, Atiqur son of Chand Ali, Bablu yadav, Mujir former Pradhan Fakire, Liyaqat, Prahlad son of Feru, Ved Prakash son of Kamta Prasad, Salim son of Banshah Ali etc residents of village-Dikauli, Police Station-Sonwa, Distrct-Shrawasti, around 100 persons whose names and addresses are unknown, were standing in an illegal crowd. In view of the Lok Sabha General Elections 2024, prohibitory orders are in force in the district under Section 144 Cr.P.C. The gathering of above mentioned persons in a public place is a punishable offence under Section 188 IPC. Therefore, request was made to register a case against the above mentioned persons and take necessary action. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in fact, applicants and others carried out a peaceful procession and merely by doing so it cannot he said that they committed offence under section 188 IPC.
3. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that mere violation of section 144 Cr.P.C. does not attract the provisions of Section 188 IPC and for offence punishable Under Section-188 I.P.C. it is necessary that the alleged disobedience committed by accused person must cause tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed. It has been submitted that as per Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C., no court shall take cognizance for an offence punishable under Section 178 to 188 (both inclusive) of the IPC except on the complaint in writing made by a public servant concerned and therefore, cognizance and summoning order dated 09.01.2026 is illegal as in the present matter admittedly court concerned took cognizance for offence under Section 188 IPC on the police report submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. He further submits that Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. defines complaint as allegations made orally or in writing to the Magistrate with a view to the Magistrate taking action on such complaint under the Code. Only on such complaint, the Magistrate can take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. and thereafter the procedure prescribed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. has to be followed. Therefore the first information report, charge sheet and the order taking cognizance on such charge sheet filed under section 172(2) Cr.P.C. are without jurisdiction.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in the cases of Subroto Paul @ Yash Paul and another vs. State of U.P. and others (Application U/s 482 No.17063 of 2010), decided on 26.5.2010 (Paras 5, 7 and 9); Ajay Rai vs. State of U.P. and another, 2025:AHC:155752 (Paras 21 & 26) and a judgment of the Supreme Court in Umashankar Yadav and another vs. State of U.P. and another, 2025 INSC 653 (Paras 32 to 34).
5. The main contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the cognizance of offence under Section 186 IPC was taken on a police report in breach of Section 195 Cr.P.C. and Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C.. Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. provides that the complaint means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. It has been submitted that a bare perusal of the summoning order indicates that the Magistrate has taken cognizance on the charge sheet filed by the police.
6. On the other hand, Sri Vivek Gupta, learned AGA for the State, has submitted that the summoning order itself indicates that there is complaint before the Magistrate and while issuing summons, he has mentioned that "????? ???????? ????? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ????????? ?? ??????? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ????- 200 CRPC ?? ?????? ?? ????????? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ?????????? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ? ???? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ???". Sri Gupta has also placed a copy of the application dated 10.7.2025 filed by the Investigating Office, who is competent authority, before the concerned court i.e. A.C.J.M./FTC, District Shrawasti. The copy of the application dated 10.7.2025 produced by the learned AGA is taken on record. In the said application, it has been mentioned that though the charge sheet no.A-97/24 dated 19.7.2024 has been filed in the court, but as per legal provisions, the cognizance cannot be taken on the charge sheet. It is further mentioned in the said application that offence is pertaining to Section 188 IPC (Section 223 BNS), therefore, the application may be taken on record and the same may be registered and case may be proceeded in accordance with law. He has further submitted that the summons clearly indicate that the case has been registered on the applicant given by the Investigating Officer, therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the court below.
7. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Vivek Gupta, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
8. The application dated 10.7.2025 clearly indicates that the Investigating Officer has mentioned that cognizance cannot be taken on the case diary/charge sheet, therefore, it has been submitted by the Investigating Officer to register the case as complaint. While issuing summons, the Magistrate has also recorded the fact that the complaint has been presented before him, therefore, on the basis of complaint, he has proceeded. Thus, the condition of Section 188 IPC and Sections 195 and 2(d) of Cr.P.C. is satisfied after going through the application dated 10.7.2025.
9. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicants raises disputed questions of fact, which cannot be decided by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court cannot weigh the evidences and also cannot do mini trial here. The evidences can be adduced before the trial court and after adducing the evidences on record, truth may come out, but at this stage, this Court cannot interfere in the matter. There is no illegality or infirmity in the summons issued by the Magistrate.
10. The application is rejected.
(Brij Raj Singh,J.) May 20, 2026 Sachin