Tayyab vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8465 of 2026
(Along with Criminal Misc. Writ Petitions Nos. 2789 of 2026, 3132 of 2026 and 6019 of 2026)
Tayyab …..Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and others …..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shashi Kant Shukla, Senior
Advocate along with Mr. Mohd.
Shakib, Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Mr. Shyam Kumar Yadav, Advocate
for respondent no. 5
Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari,
Additional Government Advocate
for respondents nos. 1 to 4
RESERVED
Court No. - 2
HON’BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
HON’BLE TARUN SAXENA, J.
(DELIVERED BY : J.J. MUNIR, J.)
This judgment will decide the present petition and connected
Criminal Misc. Writ Petitions Nos. 6019 of 2026, 2789 of 2026, and 3132
of 2026. All these writ petitions lay challenge to the same First
1
Information Report and have, therefore, been heard together.
1 ‘FIR’ for short

2
CRLP No. 8465 of 2026
2. This writ petition, along with the connected writ petitions, has been
instituted seeking to quash the FIR dated 09.12.2025, giving rise to Crime
No. 348 of 2025, under Sections 85, 115(2), 64, 351(2), 61(2)(a), 70(2) of
2
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 , Section 3/4 of the Muslim Women
(Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 and Sections 5(l)/6 and
3
17/18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ,
Police Station Saidnagli, District Amroha.
3. The first informant, according to the FIR, was forced to marry one
Azhar Nawaz, a resident of Village Dhakka, Tahsil Hasanpur, Mohalla
4
Mahal, District Amroha. The informant , as she says, was coerced to enter
into this marriage under threat and by force on 25.04.2015, when her
nikah was performed with Azhar Nawaz. She says that she was aged
barely 15 years at the time. After the marriage of parties, Azhar would
beat up the prosecutrix. In the month of January, 2016, Azhar ended the
marital bond with the pronouncement of a Triple Talaq. After the passage
of a few months, Azhar Nawaz came back to the prosecutrix with a
proposal to marry her a second time. Next, in the month of November,
2016, Azhar got the informant to perform a halala nikah with co-accused
Maulana Qayyum. The nikah was performed by Murtza alias Kari Murtza
5
son of Sageer Ahamad at Town Siyana, District Bulandshahr. Azhar had
come along with a cousin of his, one degree removed, Tayyab son of
2 ‘BNS’ for short
3 ‘POCSO Act’ for short
4 hereinafter referred to as ‘prosecutrix’, unless the context requires a specific reference
5 the petitioner in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2789 of 2026

3
CRLP No. 8465 of 2026
6 7
Amjad Hussain , and a cousin, Asim son of Mohammad Ghufran . After
the halala nikah, a second nikah of the prosecutrix with Azhar Nawaz was
performed in the month of April, 2017. The parties cohabited, and of the
wedlock of parties, a daughter was born on 01.04.2018 at Moradabad.
4. After birth of the daughter, Azhar's behaviour towards the
prosecutrix changed for the worse and went downhill. He resumed beating
her. On 24.01.2021, he divorced the informant a second time, and during
the period of her iddat and within eleven days of the divorce, he married
another woman, Nayab Akhtar. The prosecutrix says that she was aware
of the illicit relationship between Azhar Nawaz and the other woman,
while the two were married. After the second divorce with the prosecutrix
and his own second marriage, Azhar would find pretexts to resume his
relationship with the prosecutrix, sometimes citing their daughter as the
cause and at others, the matter of paying maintenance etc. Sometimes, he
would say that his other wife (Nayab Akhtar) was barren. It was also said
by the informant that Azhar told her that he had divorced his second wife
and that he wishes to stay with her and their daughter, resuming their
family. His brothers and co-accused Shahnawaz Chaudhary and Hakim
8
Nishat alias Nishat would convince the prosecutrix about the wisdom of
Azhar's proposal. The prosecutrix, bearing in mind her daughter's future,
besides being a broken woman on account of the trauma of two divorces
and financial stringency, agreed to a third marriage between the parties,
6 the petitioner in the present writ petition
7 the petitioner in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6019 of 2026
8 the petitioners in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3132 of 2026

4
CRLP No. 8465 of 2026
which she has mentioned in the FIR as a second marriage. As soon as the
prosecutrix agreed to this proposal, Azhar's brothers told her that since her
marriage with Azhar had already ended twice, it would require a halala
twice over. Under the pretext of doing a halala, the prosecutrix says that
co-accused Shahnawaz Chaudhary and Hakim Nishat ravished her and
upon resistance, threatened her with death. And they also said that her
dead body and that of her daughter would not be recovered if she
endeavoured to stop them. This offence happened on 19.02.2025. In the
evening, the same day, Azhar, Shahnawaz, Maulana Nadim son of
Masroor, Aquil son of Mohammad Gufran and Hakim Nishat did the
show of a nikah with Azhar, which the prosecutrix says was bogus. It was
represented to her that a nikah with Azhar had been performed, but later
on, she came to know that the represented nikah was falsehood and it was
just a pretext to resume carnal relations with her. So long as this fraud was
believed to be true by the prosecutrix, she and Azhar Nawaz lived
together as man and wife. The prosecutrix also says that her consent to the
nikah was given in a false belief, rendering her consent as one obtained by
fraud. The prosecutrix says that all these accused, to wit, Azhar Nawaz,
Shahnawaz Chaudhary, Maulana Nadim, Aquil, Hakim Nishat, Kari
Murtza and Maulana Qayyum had come together to defraud the
prosecutrix, threaten her, treat her with cruelty and taking advantage of
her helplessness, made, what the prosecutrix says, a ‘dirty’ use of her. She

5
CRLP No. 8465 of 2026
requested registration of a crime against all the named men and strict
action in accordance with law.
5. There is mention of a medico-legal examination, where there is an
ossification test report dated 12.12.2025 and a dental evaluation dated
16.12.2025 on record. In the year 2025, the prosecutrix has been
estimated to be above 25 years. The statement of the prosecutrix was also
recorded under section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
9
2023 before the Judicial Magistrate. We would allude to it later in this
judgment.
6. After the prosecutrix’s statement under Section 183 as also under
Section 180 BNSS were recorded vide C.D. No. 6 dated 24.12.2025, the
Investigating Officer added six other co-accused, including the petitioner.
Section 61(2)(a) BNS and Sections 5(l)/6 and 17/18 POCSO Act were
added to the cart of offences. The number of accused went up to nine.
C.D. No. 6 records the names of the nine accused, and they are, Azhar
Nawaz, Shahnawaj Chaudhary, Hakim Nishat, Asim, Maulana Qayyum,
Tayyab, Maulana Nadim, Aquil and Kari Murtza. It is on this profile of
the accused, five of whom are petitioners in the present writ petition and
the connected petitions, the contents of the FIR, the medico-legal reports,
the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 183 and 180 BNSS, besides
other relevant documents, that we have heard these matters. Of course, the
petitions have been admitted to hearing, with parties, including the State
9 ‘BNSS’ for short

6
CRLP No. 8465 of 2026
and the informant, exchanging affidavits in the present writ petition as
also some of the writ petitions, all of which stand more or less on
common edifice, except for the admitted distinction based on roles of
individual petitioners endeavoured to be drawn during the very detailed
submissions advanced by learned Counsel for parties.
7. Heard Mr. Shashi Kant Shukla, learned Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr. Mohammad Sakir, learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of this
petition, Mr. Shyam Kumar Yadav, learned Counsel for respondent no. 5
and Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing on behalf of respondents nos. 1 to 4. The same learned Counsel
have addressed us in Criminal Misc. Writ Petitions Nos. 2789 of 2026 and
3132 of 2026. In Criminal Misc. 6019 of 2026, we have heard Mr.
Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shyam
Kumar Yadav, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no. 5 and Mr.
Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing on behalf of respondents nos. 1 to 4.
8. It is submitted by Mr. Shashi Kant Shukla, learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the present writ petition, besides
Criminal Misc. Writ Petitions Nos. 2789 of 2026 and 3132 of 2026, that
the allegation against the petitioner, Tayyab is that in the month of
November, 2016, when the first halala nikah was performed with Maulana
Qayyum, then along with the prosecutrix and her husband, co-accused
Azhar Nawaz, the petitioner also went to Town Siyana, Bulandshahar. The

7
CRLP No. 8465 of 2026
allegation against Murtza alias Kari Murtza is that when the first halala
nikah was performed with Maulana Qayyum, he acted as the Qazi to
perform the halala nikah. The allegations against petitioners Shahnawaz
Chaudhary and Hakim Nishat alias Nishat are that when the prosecutrix
wanted to solemnise a nikah again with her ex-husband, Azhar Nawaz,
they told her that as she had been divorced twice over, she would have to
perform halala also twice over. It is the prosecutrix’s allegation that on the
pretext of halala, Shahnawaz Chaudhary and Hakim Nishat ravished her
on 19.02.2025.
9. It is argued by Mr. Shashi Kant Shukla, learned Senior Advocate
that in the year 2016, by the time all this had happened, Triple Talaq
(Talaq-e-Biddat) was permissible as per Shariat law in India, and now, it
has been abolished by the Act of 2019, which came into force with
retrospective effect on 19.09.2018. He points out that nikah halala is a
valid ritual, according to the Islamic Law. It is treated a Sunnat, if a
Muslim woman wants to remarry her husband. It is also pointed out that
in the year 2021, while securing a divorce decree by mutual consent, the
prosecutrix has mentioned her age to be 24 years, and therefore, working
it back in time, at the time of her nikah in the year 2015, she was 18 years
old. It is also argued that the Quran does not specify a minimum
numerical age for marriage.
10. It is next urged that if a marriage is solemnised during minority and,
after attaining majority, a Muslim woman does not repudiate the marriage

8
CRLP No. 8465 of 2026
by filing a petition within one year, then the marriage, which was initially
voidable, ipso facto becomes valid and binding on the parties upon the
expiry of one year from the date she attains majority. It is submitted that
marriage with a minor is never void.
11. It is next urged that because some disputes arose between Azhar
Nawaz and the prosecutrix relating to the custody of their daughter,
though it is still with Azhar Nawaz, the prosecutrix created disturbance,
leading Azhar to move complaints on the Integrated Grievance Redressal
10
System Portal on 02.12.2025 and 04.12.2025. Acting on these
complaints, it is pointed out by the learned Senior Advocate that the
Police, after inquiry, have made reports that both the husband and the wife
have separated and a divorce decree has been passed by the Court. It is
also reported that custody of the daughter is with Azhar Nawaz. It is also
urged that once the ex-husband of the prosecutrix made an IGRS
complaint against her, the impugned FIR has been lodged as an abuse of
process of Court to implicate him and his distant relatives in order to
bring oblique pressure upon the husband to give custody of the minor
daughter as also annex five bigha of land that Azhar Nawaz owns, and to
which, the prosecutrix has no right. So far as the petitioner Murtza alias
Kari Murtza is concerned, he is a respected man in society, with no
criminal antecedents. He gives tuitions to students in Islamic studies. He
10 ‘IGRS’ for short

9
CRLP No. 8465 of 2026
is not a Qazi who solemnises a nikah. He is a Kari, which the learned
Senior Advocate describes as one who holds a degree in Islamic studies.
12. It is next contended that the dispute between the prosecutrix and her
ex-husband, co-accused Azhar Nawaz, has been going on for the last ten
years. For the sake alone that the petitioners in the connected writ
petitions, namely, Shahnawaj Chaudhary and Hakim Nishat are the
brother and nephew, respectively of the prosecutrix’s ex-husband, they
have been falsely implicated in the present case in order to harass them
and bring oblique pressure upon Azhar Nawaz to fulfill the prosecutrix’s
unjust demands. The petitioner, Tayyab, is said to be a super senior
citizen, aged 71 years, with no criminal antecedents. He has been falsely
implicated in the present case, because, he is a collateral of the
prosecutrix's ex-husband one degree removed (in common parlance, an
uncle).
13. Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, learned Additional Government
Advocate, has opposed the submissions of the learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and submits that serious offences,
involving rape and gang rape, against the petitioners are disclosed,
including those under the POCSO Act, going by the victim's age, when
determined arithmetically, working it backwards. He submits that it is not
a case which warrants relief of quashing the FIR, but one which requires
to be thoroughly investigated.

10
CRLP No. 8465 of 2026
14. Mr. Shyam Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the
informant/respondent no. 5 has also been at considerable pains to address
us on all aspects of the matter. He submits that in the month of November
2016, the informant was a minor, aged 16 years. The petitioner in the
present petition, Tayyab, as well as co-accused Azhar Nawaz, the
prosecutrix's ex-husband, Asim, Kari Murtza and Maulana Qayyum
orchestrated a halala for her. It is submitted that Maulana Qayyum acted
as the principal offender and rapist, while others abetted him and acted as
conspirators. It is emphasised that the allegations in the FIR, put in the
proper temporal context, clearly show a pattern of sexual exploitation
under the guise of nikah halala, involving a minor, at the time of the first
incident, and subsequently, a case of gang rape, masked as a double halala
in order to enable the prosecutrix to remarry her husband with whom her
marital bond had been ruptured twice over.
15. It is argued that at the inception of it all, the halala in November,
2016 involved the prosecutrix, then a minor of 16 years. Learned Counsel
for the informant says that going by the settled law in Independent
11
Thought v. Union of India , any sexual act with a minor, even under the
umbrella of a personal law, constitutes rape. Consent obtained from a
minor is no consent. The marriage on 19.02.2025, a third one with her
husband, is described by learned Counsel for the informant as a colorable
devise, intended to facilitate sexual access to the prosecutrix by multiple
11 (2017) 10 SCC 800

11
CRLP No. 8465 of 2026
men, acting in concert. He submits that under Section 69 BNS, sexual
intercourse by deceitful means is an offence. He argues that whatever the
prosecutrix has gone through is the result of inherently tainted acts
constituting offences that are mala in se, and not merely mala prohibita.
(wrongs because they are prohibited by the statute). Such acts offend the
collective conscience of the society and violate the right to dignity, which
flows to a person from Article 21 of the Constitution. It is argued that the
defense of personal law is inapplicable here, because the mandtory period
of iddat was not observed, rendering the subsequent relations a nullity,
even under the personal laws. Personal Laws cannot be used as a shield to
commit acts that constitute gang rape under the BNS. The civil decree for
divorce would not ameliorate the rigour of the offence of rape, which
affects the life and dignity of a woman. It is a crime against a person as
well as the society and humanity.
16. Learned counsel for respondent no. 5 has drawn our attention to the
Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against
12
Women , in particular, CEDAW, 1993, Article 1 whereof says :
“For the purposes of this Declaration, the term "violence
against women" means any act of gender-based violence that
results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or
psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats
of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty,
whether occurring in public or in private life.”
17. Article 2 of CEDAW, 1993 provides :
12 ‘CEDAW’ for short

12
CRLP No. 8465 of 2026
“Violence against women shall be understood to encompass,
but not be limited to the following:
(a) Physical, sexual and psychological violence occurring
in the family, including battering, sexual abuse of female
children in the household, dowry-related violence, marital
rape, female genital mutilation and other traditional
practices harmful to women, non-spousal violence and
violence related to exploitation;
(b) Physical, sexual and psychological violence occurring
within the general community, including rape, sexual abuse,
sexual harassment and intimidation at work, in educational
institutions and elsewhere, trafficking in women and forced
prostitution;
(c) Physical, sexual and psychological violence perpetrated
or condoned by the State, wherever it occurs.”
18. Reference has also been made to Article 5 of the CEDAW.
19. It is next argued that the petitioner and the other co-accused have
consistently pressurised and threatened the prosecutrix, leading to the
filing of another FIR, being Crime No. 122 of 2026. Learned Counsel has
relied on the guidelines of Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v.
13
State of Maharashtra and others , where it has been observed that the
High Court should be extremely slow to quash an FIR, where a prima
facie case of serious cognisable offences (especially those involving
sexual violence) is established. It is also argued that the practice of halala,
as applied here, is a tool of cruelty and gender-based discrimination. It
violates the victim's right under Article 21 of the Constitution, the right, in
its facet of the right to dignity and Article 14. It is further urged that some
important material facts have been suppressed from this Court,
13 (2021) 19 SCC 401

13
CRLP No. 8465 of 2026
disentitling the petitioners to relief. It is pointed out that Criminal Misc.
Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 482 BNSS No. 2417 of 2026 preferred
by co-accused, Nadim has been dismissed, and Criminal Misc.
Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 482 BNSS No. 2522 of 2026 preferred
by Tayyab, the petitioner in the present petition, too been dismissed. It is
also urged that the petitioners and the other accused continue to exert
pressure upon the prosecutrix and threaten her, which has led her to lodge
another FIR, giving rise to Crime No. 122 of 2026, under Sections 352(4)
and 232 BNS on 30.04.2026. This demonstrates the petitioners' criminal
intent and the fact that they are, by nature, outlaws. The prosecutrix has
no previous animosity against the accused. Learned counsel for the
informant/fifth respondent has relied upon Punit Beriwala v. The State of
14
NCT of Delhi and others .
20. Upon hearing learned counsel for parties, we are of opinion that this
is a case, prima facie, where the crime of ravishing a minor girl, taking
refuge behind halala, and then, much later in life, of gang rape behind the
same veil of doing a halala, has been committed, on the second occasion,
in a far more crude and outlandish manner. When it comes to criminal
law, unless the law itself makes exception, which it rarely does, there is
absolutely no place for pleading personal laws governing marriage, etc.,
if, interlaced with a matrimonial relationship, a crime were committed.
The constitutionality of halala is not under challenge before us, but, if,
14 2025 SCC OnLine SC 983

14
CRLP No. 8465 of 2026
under the garb of doing a halala, a minor girl is subjected to carnal
relations, relying on her desire to marry a man who has already divorced
her, it would certainly attract the provisions of the POCSO Act. After all,
sexual relations with a minor have been absolutely prohibited by the
Supreme Court in Independent Thought (supra). In Independent Thought,
Exception 2 to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was read down
and the provisions of the POCSO Act were given overriding effect over
all other laws to mean that there was absolutely no possibility of any
carnal relations, within or without marriage, between a man and a woman
below the age of 18 years. This view of the law still holds field, and by
falling back upon personal laws, the clear mandate of a penal statute,
which virtually makes carnal relations statutory rape or violation of a
special statute, being the POCSO Act, cannot be warded off. It must be
noted that under Exception 2 to Section 63 BNS, in deference to what was
read down in Independent Thought, the new Code enacts Exception 2, in
the following words :
"Sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own
wife, the wife not being under eighteen years of age, is
not rape."
21. A true copy of the report of the Medical Board, dated 16.12.2025
comprising three doctors, based on an ossification test, amongst others,
opines the prosecutrix to be above 25 years. Admittedly, the prosecutrix
was married for the first time in the year 2015. At that time, she would
have been aged above 16 years or so, and definitely a minor.

15
CRLP No. 8465 of 2026
22. The calendar of events shows that the prosecutrix was married on
25.04.2015 and in January, 2016, she suffered the first of her triple
divorces. In the month of November 2016, she was made to undergo
halala with one of the co-accused, Maulana Qayyum. By December, 2016,
there can be little doubt that the prosecutrix would have still been a minor.
She underwent the halala in order to remarry her husband a second time,
which happened in April 2017, two years after her first marriage. By this
time, she could be regarded as a major; but not at the time when she
underwent the halala. These are all matters which we gather from the FIR,
because, after all, we are hearing a petition to quash the FIR. We cannot
undertake an examination of events to determine the truth or falsehood of
the allegations. The statement of the prosecutrix under Section 183 BNSS,
being a very vital part of the investigation, we have examined in order to
determine if there is anything incredible about the prosecution meriting
interference. In her statement under Section 183 BNSS, the prosecutrix
says that after her first nikah, followed by divorce, the principal accused,
Azhar Nawaz, perhaps realising his mistake, thought of remarrying the
prosecutrix, a second time. She has said in her statement aforesaid that at
the time, her age was 16 years and she was told by Azhar Nawaz that the
Mufti had advised that she would have to undergo a halala. She did not
understand what halala was at the tender age of 16 years. She was taken to
Kasba Siyana by Azhar Nawaz, Asim and Tayyab (the petitioner here).
She also said that she did not know about halala nor was it done with her

16
CRLP No. 8465 of 2026
consent. Maulana Qayyum forcibly did the halala and forcibly established
carnal relations with her. The halala nikah was performed by Kari Murtza.
She has also said that when all that happened, she cried in protest, but to
no avail. She was then conveyed to Dhakka, and a second nikah was
performed with Azhar in the year 2017. In the year 2018, a daughter was
born to the parties. After the second nikah, Azhar Nawaz's treatment of
the prosecutrix again turned foul. After the daughter was born, the
treatment became worse. She was taunted with not bearing a male child.
Azhar Nawaz’s ill-treatment of the prosecutrix became worse in order to
marry a woman called Nayab Akhtar.
23. When the prosecutrix was at Aligarh, Azhar Nawaz pronounced a
Triple Talaq a second time in the year 2021. In the year 2021, a Court-
annexed mediation took place, resulting in a decree of divorce etc. While
she was in her iddat, Azhar Nawaz married Nayab Akhtar. After some
time, Azhar Nawaz came to know that Nayab Akhtar could not bear a
child. He then contacted the prosecutrix again and told her that he wanted
his daughter and that he would divorce Nayab Akhtar. It was on account
of her daughter that the prosecutrix started living with Azhar Nawaz
again. This time, Shahnawaz Chaudhary and Hakeem Nishat gave her
assurance that everything would be alright. It is for this reason she came
back to Azhar Nawaz. Shahnawaz Chaudhary, Hakeem Nishat and Azhar
Nawaz asked her to perform halala again. On occasion, Shahnawaz and
Nishat forcibly ravished her in the name of halala. This happened on

17
CRLP No. 8465 of 2026
19.02.2025. Next, a bogus nikah was performed with Azhar Nawaz. This
bogus nikah was performed by Maulana Nadim with the aid of Aquil,
Shahnawaz Chaudhary, Hakim Nishat and Azhar Nawaz, all of whom
were involved in the process, and all of them present. Next, the two
started cohabiting as man and wife. However, when the daughter's school
documents were brought up, the prosecutrix’s name was absent. When the
prosecutrix demanded her name to be there, Azhar Nawaz warded off the
demand. Then one day, Azhar Nawaz told the prosecutrix that she was not
his wife. She then explored the matter and found out that the nikah, that
was performed a third time, was bogus, and virtually, Azhar Nawaz was
establishing carnal relations with her, making her falsely believe that she
was his wife.
24. From all this account that figures in the FIR and the statement of
the prosecutrix, her age at the time when she was first married and did the
first halala prima facie constitute statutory rape and offences under
POSCO Act, and then, the allegations about the second halala, which,
prima facie, constitutes a case of gang rape, we are of opinion that this
matter requires thorough investigation. It is certainly not a case where the
prosecution can be quashed at the threshold.
25. In the totality of circumstances, we are minded to say that this case
presents the picture of a part of our society, that is far removed from the
constitutional values and the constitutional aspirations of equality,
privacy, personal dignity and whatever Articles 21 and 14 of the

18
CRLP No. 8465 of 2026
Constitution stand for. We do not, by any means, intend to say that in this
petition, that is not framed that way, that we propose or suggest anything
about the constitutionality of a given practice, but the circumstances of
this case, and whatever has happened, we say, prima facie again, militates
against the constitutional aspirations and guarantees, of which we have
just now spoken. In fact, the entire facts, that have so far come on record,
are shocking to the conscience.
26. We must notice, at this stage, the very persuasive arguments
advanced by Mr. Shashi Kant Shukla, learned Senior Advocate appearing
for the petitioner in the present petition as also two other connected writ
petitions, and Mr. Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the
petitioner in one of the connected writ petitions, that whatever be the
allegations against Azhar Nawaz and the two men initially nominated in
the FIR, the others have a marginal role. Some of them performed a nikah
and some of them are very venerable men. We do not wish say anything
about those issues, as all those matters would be thrashed out during
investigation. All that we say is that all the accused here, some of whom
whose names have surfaced during investigation, were involved in an
enterprise, playing whatever roles they did, which, put together,
constitute, prima facie, crimes by the laws of the land. Some may have
marginal roles as abettors or conspirators, but that would not entitle them
to have the FIR quashed at the threshold and the investigation against
them terminated at an incipient stage.

19
CRLP No. 8465 of 2026
27. In the result, all the writ petitions fail and stand dismissed.
28. The interim orders, wherever granted, stand vacated.
(J.J. MUNIR, J.)
(TARUN SAXENA, J.)
Allahabad
July 01, 2026
I. Batabyal
Whether the order is speaking : Yes
Whether the order is reportable : Yes
Digitally signed by :-
ISHAN BATABYAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad