Disposed

Kishor and 9 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC5 Aug 2024A482/9469/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court rejected an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of summoning order in a neighbour dispute. The court held that allegations of counter-blast are not conclusively proven and declined to quash the order, directing applicants to avail statutory remedies.

What did the court decide?

Application rejected; respondents not summoned; no prayer for quashing granted; applicants directed to approach Trial Court.

Kishor and 9 Others vs State of Up and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:125440

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9469 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Kishor And 9 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Raj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

In the present case, complainant and accused side are neighbours. The applicants (10 in number) are aggrieved by impugned order dated 28.02.2024 passed in a complaint case No.13104 of 2022 under Section 204 Cr.P.C., whereby they have been summoned to face trial under Section 452, 323, 504 and 427 I.P.C.

¶7

At the outset, Sri Brij Raj Singh, learned counsel for applicants refers that earlier applicants' side has filed a complaint case on basis of alleged occurrence took place on 24.10.2021 against complainant side, wherein after statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., they were summoned by an order dated 08.04.2022 under Sections 147, 504, 506 I.P.C.

¶8

Learned counsel further submits that present proceeding is nothing but a counterblast and malicious in nature as well as complainant story has suffered with incorrect and improbable facts. He further submits that in present days, complaint proceedings are being used only to harass other parties and present case is also an example of it.

¶9

In order to appreciate above submissions, I have carefully perused statement of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. as well as witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. which are reproduced hereinafter:-

¶10

" -200 - बयय ा न पररवय ि ा दद ी अन ् तररत धय ा रय ि द०प ्र ०सस ं ०

¶11

20.07.2023-सत्यपयाल पपुत्र अतरि ससह उम्र 58 वरर पपेशया ककषर सया० मपुरदपपुरि थयानया नवरयासंव सजिलया एटया नपे सशपथ बययान षकयया षक घटनया 27.4.2022 ककी हहै। म अपनपे भयाई सत्य प्रकयाश कक लो पेकरि नपेमससह व षकशकोरि कपे पयास रयपे उन्हकोनपे मपेरिपे

¶12

15 मकयान सपे फकीट ककी दरद दि ी परि समरससबल लरयि ायपे सजससि पे मपेरयि ा मकयान चटक 2 रयय। समरा ि ससवल नपेम ससह अपनपे जमदि ीन परि लरयायया। पदछनपे परि रन्ददी रयालद दपेनपे लरपे तथया धमककी दपेनपे लरपे। तथया उसदी षदन नपेम ससह षकशकोरि वलबदीर , , ओमप्रकयाश जयपि ्रकयाश व षवनय रयि ाघव रयि ाजनयि ाथ षनतदीन व मपुरयि ारदि ी आकरि मपेर घरिपे , परि चढयाई करि ददी म घरम ि मम घपुस रयपे। तथया आलमयारदि चयरा पयि ाई आषद तकोड षदयपे। , रयासंव कपे लकोर आकरि बदीच बचयाव षकयपे। नपेम ससह व षकशकोरि कचहरदि ी मम मपुन्शदी ह नपे धमककी षदयया षक कपु छ नहहीं करि पयाओरपे। जकि ो चयाह ह रया वहदी हकरयो ा। मझपु पे लयाठदी डण्डय सपे सभदी लकोर मयारिपे। थयानपे परि रयया लपेषकन ककोई कयायरवयाहदी नहदी हहई। षफरि एस०पदी० सयाहब कको जिररियपे रिसजिस्टटदी दरिखयास्त षदयया लपेषकन ककोई कयायरवयाहदी नहहीं हहई।

¶13

17.08.2023

¶14

सत्यप्रकयाश पपुत्र अतरि सससंह गया० मरसंदपपुरि थयानया नययारयासंव सजिलया एटया नपे सशपथ बययान षकयया षक मम ककषर कयायर करितया ह ह । रवयाहदी कपे सलए मपेरिपे भयाई बपुलयाकरि लयायपे हहै। 10 27.04.2022 कको महै घरि परि थया। मपेरयि ा मकयान नपेम ससह कपे मकयान सपे मदी० दरद दि ह वकम ररो र निसं पेम ससह करयि ा रहि पे थपे। महैनपे मनया षकयया तको नपेम ससह रयालदी षदयपे तथय धमककी षदयपे महै घर चलयि ा आयया मपेर घरिपे मि पे घपुसकर लयि ाठदी डण्डया सपे मयरा यि ा तथया घर मि -2 रखयि ा सयमया ान तकड षदययो ा। शकोरि परि रयव कासं पे लकोर आयपे तब नपेम ससह भदद रयालद । षदयपे तथया धमककी दपेतपे हहए चलपे रय

¶15

202 सद . आर . . सद . बयय ् ा न अस ं तररत धय ा रय ि ा पद ी

¶16

29.08.2023- वदीरिपेन्द्र ससह पपुत्र धनपयाल ससह उम्र 28 वरर पपेशया ककषर सया० मरसंतपपुरि, थयानया नययारयासंव, सजिलया एटया नपे सशपथ ब्ययान षकयया षक सत्यपयाल ससह मपेरिपे रयासंव कपे हहै। षकशकोरि वरहैरिह भदी मपेरिपे रयासंव कपे हहै। षकशकोरि आषद व सत्यपयाल सपे मपेरिया सम्बन्ध सयामयान्य हहै। रवयाहदी दपेनपे कपे सलए सत्यपयाल ससह बपुलयाकरि लयायपे हहै। 27.4.2022 कको पररिवयाददी व मपुललजिमयान कपे बदीच झरडया हहआ। शयाम कपे 6 बजिपे थपे। , , , वकोररर किसं पे वजह सि पे झरडपे मम नपेम ससह षकशकोर बलवदीर जयपि ्रकयाश षवजय ओमि , प्रकयाश रयि ाजनयि ाथ मरपु यि ारदि ी षनतदीन रयि ाघव आषद थपे। सभदी लकोरको कपे हयाथ मपे डण्डया तथय बलवदीरि कपे हयाथ तपे तमसंचया थया। चदख सी पुनकरि म पहहै ह चया। जब मि पहहै ह चया तको दखयपे ा षक सत्यपयाल कपे घरि सपे घपुसकरि मललजपु मयि ान मयारपदि ीट करि रहि पे थपे। बहहत सपे लकोर । पह ह चकरि झरडपे कको शयान्त करवयि ायया। षफर मि अपनहै पे घर चलयि ा आयय

¶17

202 सद . आर . . सद . बयय ् ा न अस ं तररत धय ा रय ि ा पद ी

¶18

आजि षदनयासंक 26.09.2023 कको सयाकदी सपुनदील कपुमयारि ससह पपुत्र ससौदयान ससह उम्र 45 वरर पपेशया खपेतदी षनवयासदी मपुरसंदपपुरि थयानया नययारयासंव सजिलया एटया नपे बहलफ बययान षकयया षक-

¶19

, ओमप्रकयाश जयपि ्रकयाश व षवजयि रयि ाजनयि ाथ मरपु यि ारदि ी रयि ाघव व षनषतन लयाठदी डण्डपे व तमन्चपे लपेकरि मयरा पदि ीट करि रहि पे थपे। यपे लकोर सत्यपयाल कपे घरि मपे घस आयपु पे। घटनय 6 शयाम कपे बजिपे ककी ह। रयहै ालदी रलसौजि दपे रहि पे थपे। जयि ान सपे मयरा नि पे ककी धमककी दद थदी ी। , , इन लकोरको ककी चदीख पपुकयारि परि मसौकपे परि नरिपेन्द वदरी िपेन्द सपुनदील आषद लकोर आय थपे। मम भदी पहहसंच रयया थया। लयाइसपेसदी बन्ददक सपे षनषतन नपे वलवदीरि नपे तमन्चपे सपे सत्यपयाल व उनकपे भयाई सत्यप्रकयाश परि जियान सपे मयारिनपे ककी नदीयत सपे फयायरि षकयपे थपे। तथया घरि मम रिखपे सयामयान चयारिपयाई वतरन बक्शया आषद ककी तकोडफयाडकरि ददी थदी। करिदीब तदीस हजियारि रूपयपे कया नपुकशयान षकयया थया।"

¶20

At this stage, the Court has to consider whether on basis of material available, learned Magistrate has assigned reasons that there are sufficient grounds to proceed as well as to consider the attending circumstances, if any whether it would be a case of malicious proceeding or counter-blast proceedings.

¶21

It is not under dispute that both parties are next door neighbour and their relations are not cordial since admittedly earlier applicants' side have filed a complaint wherein complainant side have been summoned. The Court takes note that due to non-cordial relationship as well as earlier criminal proceedings an argument of counter-blast is like walking on a double edged sword, which could go either side. The alleged incident as portrait by complainant and witnesses could not be considered to be absolutely improbable on basis of material available. The occurrence allegedly took place, when complainant side have objected applicant's side for boring near to their wall and this led applicant side to assault complainant side.

¶22

Learned Trial Court has considered statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. in their correct perspective that no-one was summoned under Section 307 I.P.C. though in some of statements, there was an allegation of firing also but it was not consistent.

¶23

Learned Trial Court has considered material and summoned the applicants (10 in number) only for offence where it was found that there were sufficient material to proceed under Section 323, 452,504 and 427 I.P.C. An argument that being a case of 'hurt' but since not supported by any medical evidence could be ground to quash summoning order is also liable to be rejected at this stage that for purpose of offfence of 'hurt', a medical report is not a mandatory requirement in all cases.

¶24

Further a reference could be taken of definition of 'hurt' as defined under relevant provision of I.P.C.

¶25

In a proceeding arising out of complaint case, the accused/applicants are provided with an opportunity at the stage of Section 244 Cr.P.C. for cross-examination of complainant and witnesses for purpose of maintaining check and balance that accused side may not be unnecessary prosecuted and, therefore, while rejecting prayer made in this application, it is observed that applicants would be at liberty to raise all legally permissible argument at the stage of Section 244 Cr.P.C. or even at the stage of Section 245 Cr.P.C., as the case may be.

¶26

It is directed that applicants will appear within period of three weeks before learned Trial Court and if files a bail application, it would be considered in accordance with law.

¶27

This application is disposed of with aforesaid observation. Order Date :- 5.8.2024 P. Pandey

¶28

Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kishor and 9 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishor and 9 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Leeladhar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neeraj Kumar vs State of Up 3 Others

Yogendra vs State of Up and Another

Yogendra Kumar Alias Yogendra Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another

Prempal Alias Pappu and Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd Umar Khan vs State of U.P. 7 Others