Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Criminal Case Against Muslim Personal Law Board Leader Noor Ahmed Azhari Over Alleged Communal Remarks on Atiq-Ashraf Killing
BY Rajesh Pandey
The Allahabad High Court has declined to quash the criminal proceedings pending against Noor Ahmed Azhari, the Uttar Pradesh chairman of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, in connection with a controversial video statement in which he allegedly claimed that BJP-ruled states were attempting to intimidate Muslims and undermine the Constitution of India.
According to the prosecution, Azhari had also described the killing of gangster-turned-politician Atiq Ahmed and his brother Ashraf Ahmed as part of a conspiracy allegedly orchestrated by the government.
He reportedly stated that the ruling establishment lacked faith in constitutional principles, remarks that subsequently led to the registration of a criminal case against him.
FIR and Chargesheet
Following the circulation of the video on social media, an FIR was registered against Azhari at the Puranpur police station in Pilibhit district, Uttar Pradesh. After investigating the matter, the police filed a chargesheet before the competent court.
Acting upon the chargesheet, the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Pilibhit, took cognizance of the alleged offences and issued a summons to Azhari on July 24, 2024, requiring him to appear before the court.
Challenging the legality of the criminal proceedings, Azhari approached the High Court by filing an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking quashing of the summons as well as the entire criminal proceedings pending before the CJM court in Pilibhit district.
High Court Observations on Prima Facie Case
While dismissing the application, Justice Saurabh Srivastava observed that at the stage of taking cognizance of an offence, the role of the court is limited to examining whether a prima facie case is made out based on material available on record.
The court clarified that at this preliminary stage, it is not required to conduct a detailed evaluation of evidence or determine the merits of the allegations, as such an exercise falls within the domain of trial.
The Court held that the applicant’s plea lacked merit and did not warrant interference under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.
Justice Srivastava emphasized that the law does not permit a detailed scrutiny of disputed facts while considering a plea for quashing criminal proceedings, especially when the allegations disclosed in the FIR and supporting material indicate the commission of a cognizable offence.
Arguments Presented by the Applicant
During the hearing, counsel representing Azhari argued that the applicant holds the position of state president of the Muslim Personal Law Board and regularly participates in television debates to present the organization’s views on issues concerning the Muslim community.
It was contended that his remarks regarding the killing of Atiq Ahmed and Ashraf Ahmed in Prayagraj were made in the context of public discourse and did not amount to any offence, particularly under Section 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with statements that promote enmity or hatred between different groups.
The defence further argued that the investigating officer had submitted the chargesheet without conducting a fair and impartial investigation.
It was also submitted that the CJM court had taken cognizance of the alleged offences mechanically and without proper application of the judicial mind, thereby resulting in an abuse of the legal process.
On these grounds, the applicant sought the quashing of the criminal proceedings to prevent the misuse of the law.
State’s Opposition to the Plea
Opposing the application, the counsel representing the State argued that the issues raised by the applicant involved disputed questions of fact which could only be properly examined during trial after appreciation of evidence.
The State contended that at the stage of cognizance, the court is only required to determine whether the allegations disclose the commission of an offence on the face of the record, and not to undertake a detailed examination resembling a mini-trial.
The State further submitted that the allegations in the FIR indicated that the applicant’s statements had the potential to promote communal disharmony and incite hostility between different sections of society, thereby disturbing public order.
Court’s Findings
In its order dated March 16, the High Court noted that a plain reading of the FIR suggested allegations that the applicant had attempted to provoke religious sentiments and create communal tension within society.
The Court observed that the statements attributed to Azhari could potentially incite hatred against the government and may lead to disturbances affecting public peace and law and order.
Considering the nature of the allegations and the material placed on record, the Court concluded that it could not be said at this stage that no prima facie case was made out against the applicant.
Consequently, the High Court refused to interfere with the criminal proceedings pending before the CJM court in Pilibhit district.
Legal Significance
The ruling reiterates the settled legal principle that High Courts, while exercising inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings, must refrain from conducting a detailed examination of evidence at the preliminary stage.
The judgment underscores that the existence of a prima facie case is sufficient for trial proceedings to continue, and disputed factual issues must ordinarily be adjudicated by the trial court after full consideration of evidence and arguments presented by both sides.
