PRAYAGRAJ, April 11 -- The Allahabad high court has declined to quash criminal proceedings against Noor Ahmed Azhari, UP chairman of the Muslim Personal Law Board, over a viral video in which he allegedly claimed that BJP-ruled states were intimidating Muslims and had trampled the Constitution. An FIR was registered against him at Puranpur police station in Pilibhit district, following which a charge sheet was filed. The Pilibhit chief judicial magistrate court took cognisance and issued summons on July 24, 2024, prompting Azhari to move the high court under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking quashing of the proceedings. Dismissing the plea, justice Saurabh Srivastava observed, "At the stage of taking cognizance, 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." The high court, in its decision dated March 16, further said, "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, counsel for the applicant contended that Azhari, who participates in TV debates, had merely expressed his views and that his statements did not attract the offence under Section 505(2). It was also argued that the charge sheet was filed without a fair investigation and that the trial court took cognisance mechanically. Opposing the plea, the state counsel submitted that the issues raised involved disputed questions of fact and appreciation of evidence, which cannot be examined at the stage of quashing, and that only a prima facie case is required to be seen at the stage of cognisance....