Allahabad High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings against Noor Ahmed Azhari, Uttar Pradesh chairman of the Muslim Personal Law Board, over a viral video allegedly showing him reportedly claiming BJP-ruled states intimidated Muslims and disregarded the Constitution.
The Allahabad High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings against Noor Ahmed Azhari, the Uttar Pradesh chairman of the Muslim Personal Law Board, in connection with a viral video in which he was allegedly heard making remarks that BJP-ruled states were intimidating Muslims and had disregarded the Constitution.
An FIR was registered against him at Puranpur police station in Pilibhit district, and a charge sheet was subsequently filed. After the Pilibhit Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognisance and issued summons on July 24, 2024, Azhari approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking to have the proceedings quashed.
Dismissing the plea, Justice Saurabh Srivastava observed,
“At the stage of taking cognisance, a court’s primary focus is to determine if a prima facie case exists, meaning whether there is sufficient evidence to suggest that an offense has been committed, and not to delve into the merits of the case or the evidence. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present application being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.”
In its decision dated March 16, the court further held,
“By bare perusal of the narrations made in the FIR wherein it has been mentioned that applicant is accused of spreading religious excitement and communal feelings among a particular community which has the effect of creating hostility among people. The allegations also suggest that such actions may provoke people, out of hatred towards the government, to engage in rioting and disturbances, which can disturb public peace and order and as such, at this stage, it cannot be said that prima facie, no case is made”.
During the hearing, Azhari’s counsel argued that as Azhari regularly participates in TV debates, he was only expressing his viewpoint and that his statements did not amount to an offence under Section 505(2).
It was also contended that the charge sheet was filed without a proper investigation and that the trial court took cognisance in a mechanical manner.
On the other hand, state counsel opposed the plea, submitting that the matters raised involved disputed questions of fact and require evaluation of evidence, which cannot be examined while considering an application for quashing.
The state also argued that at the stage of cognisance, it is sufficient if a prima facie case is made out.