Skip to content
Order
  • Library
  • Features
  • About
  • Blog
  • Contact
Get started
Book a Demo

Order

At Order.law, we’re building India’s leading AI-powered legal research platform.Designed for solo lawyers, law firms, and corporate legal teams, Order helps you find relevant case law, analyze judgments, and draft with confidence faster and smarter.

Product

  • Features
  • Blog

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms

Library

  • Acts
  • Judgments
© 2026 Order. All rights reserved.
  1. Home/
  2. Library/
  3. Allahabad High Court/
  4. 2024/
  5. March

Salamuddin Alias Islamuddin vs. State of U.p. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Decided on 29 March 2024• Citation: /2873/2024• Allahabad High Court
Download PDF

Read Judgment


                                               Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:26323
                             Court No. - 16                                       
                             Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2873 of 2024       
                             Applicant :- Salamuddin Alias Islamuddin             
                             Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And
                             Another                                              
                             Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Pal Singh,Ambrish Kumar
                             Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.                   
                             Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.                              
                             Heard Shri Shiv Pal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as
                             well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
                             The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed
                             by the applicant, namely, Salamuddin alias Islamuddin, with a
                             prayer to quash the Non Bailable Warrant order dated 22.2.2024
                             passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Bahraich,
                             in Case No. 3714 of 2020, State v. Jahiruddin & ors., arising out
                             of Chargesheet No. A31/2020 dated 29.01.2020 in Case Crime
                             No. 0024/2020, under Sections 323, 504, 325 I.P.C., Police
                             Station Risia, District Bahraich.                    
                             The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that
                             no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present
                             prosecution has been instituted with a mala fide intention for
                             the purposes of harassment.                          
                             Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has contended that from the
                             allegations made in the FIR prima facie offence is made out
                             against the applicant. The innocence of the applicant cannot be
                             adjudged at the pre-trial stage. Therefore, the applicant does not
                             deserve any indulgence.                              
                             From the perusal of the materials on record and looking into the
                             facts of the case and after considering the arguments made at
                             the bar, prima facie it does not appear that no offence has been
                             made out against the applicant.                      
                             At the stage of issuing process the court below is not expected
                             to examine and assess in detail the material placed on record,
                             only this has to be seen whether prima facie cognizable offence
                             is disclosed or not. The Apex Court has also laid down the
                             guidelines where the criminal proceedings could be interfered
                             and quashed in exercise of its power by the High Court in the
                             following cases:-(i) R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR
                             1960 S.C. 866, (ii) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal, 1992
                             SCC (Crl.)426, (iii) State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992

                             SCC (Crl.)192 and (iv) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.
                             Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC
                             (Cri.)283.                                           
                             From the aforesaid decisions the Apex Court has settled the
                             legal position for quashing of the proceedings at the initial
                             stage. The test to be applied by the court is to whether
                             uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie establishes the
                             offence and the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no
                             useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal
                             proceedings to be continued. In S.W. Palankattkar & others
                             Vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC 168, it has been held by the
                             Hon'ble Apex Court that quashing of the criminal proceedings
                             is an exception than a rule. The inherent powers of the High
                             Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C itself envisages three
                             circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be
                             exercised:-(i) to give effect an order under the Code, (ii) to
                             prevent abuse of the process of the court; (iii) to otherwise
                             secure the ends of justice. The power of High Court is very
                             wide but should be exercised very cautiously to do real and
                             substantial justice for which the court alone exists.
                             The High Court would not embark upon an inquiry as it is the
                             function of the Trial Judge/Court. The interference at the
                             threshold of quashing of non-bailable warrant/ criminal
                             proceedings in case in hand cannot be said to be exceptional as
                             it discloses prima facie commission of an offence. In the result,
                             the prayer for quashing of non-bailable warrant is refused.
                             There is no merit in this case. The applicant has ample
                             opportunity to raise all the objections at the appropriate stage.
                             With the aforesaid observations, this application stands
                             disposed of, however, the applicant is directed to appear and
                             surrender before the court below and apply for bail within 6
                             weeks from today, and his prayer for bail shall be considered
                             expeditiously in accordance with law and as per law after
                             hearing the Public Prosecutor.                       
                                                                (Shamim Ahmed, J.)
                             Order Date :- 29.3.2024                              
                             A.Nigam                                              
    Digitally signed by :-                                                        
    ANUJ NIGAM                                                                    
    High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,                                        
    Lucknow Bench