Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 175134 (ALL)

NIHAL AHMAD v. STATE OF U.P. and OTHERS

A482/2033/2021 · 2025-12-11

Gautam Chowdhary

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2033 of 2021 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri Ashok Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 21.01.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Barabanki in Criminal Revision No. 19 of 2020 (Nihal Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and others), dismissing the said revision filed by the applicant against the order dated 21.07.2020 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki in Misc. Application No. 426 of 2020 (Nihal Ahmad Vs. Kamil Kidwai and others), whereby the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by the applicant for lodging of the F.I.R. against the opposite party Nos. 4 to 12, has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits due to political rivalries of applicant's brother, the opposite party No. 4 in connivance of police personnel of concerned police station, i.e., opposite party Nos. 5 to 12 apprehended the applicant's brother and demanded illegal gratification of twenty lakh rupees for releasing him and when the applicant reported the said act of the police personnel they became annoyed and implicated his brother under the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act in which case he has been granted bail by the High Court. The applicant approaches higher authorities for the conduct of police personnel but when no action was taken he moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for lodging of F.I.R. against the opposite party Nos. 4 to 12 but the said application was wrongly rejected by the court concerned vide impugned order dated 21.07.2020. Being aggrieved the applicant filed criminal revision against the said order which too has been dismissed by the Court of Session vide its impugned order dated 21.01.2021. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajeet Kumar, Afaq Zaki Khan, Brij Mohan Sahai Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Nihal Ahmad .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Others .....Opposite Party(s) 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that while passing the impugned order the learned revisional court gave wrong findings that the applicant had filed a false application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. just to put pressure upon the police authorities as they have challaned his brother in a case under the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act, whereas the material available on record reveals that petitioner personnel have falsely roped the applicant's brother in a false cause due to malafide intention. The learned Magistrate has also passed the impugned order in a routine manner without applying its judicial mind. Hence, both the orders impugned herein are liable to be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that the learned Session Judge while rejecting the revision filed on behalf of applicant has specifically observed that the present case does not come in the purview of cross case, charge sheet has already been filed against the applicant's brother, therefore, the learned counsel below has not erred in law in rejecting the said application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Thus, there is no illegality in both the orders impugned. 6. Having heard rival submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the entire material available on record including both the impugned orders dated 21.07.2020 and 21.01.2021, this Court finds that there is no illegality, perversity or impropriety in the orders impugned and the same has rightly been passed after considering the entire evidence available before it. Moreover, the applicant has failed to show any illegality or perversity in the orders impugned, as such, no case is made out for interference by exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Dismissed accordingly. December 11, 2025 Mustaqeem A482 No. 2033 of 2021 2 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench