Raj Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:122223

Court No. - 78

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36391 of 2024

Applicant :- Raj Kumar And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vinay Prakash Sahu, learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants seeking quashing of the impugned summoning order dated 07.08.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge(Junior Division), Fast Track Court-2, Aligarh, in Criminal Complaint Case No.1150 of 2022(Mithlesh Vs. Raj Kumar and others), under sections 354, 323, 504, 506, IPC, Police Station Barla, District Aligarh.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that for the same incident dated 21.05.2022 the applicant no.4 has lodged FIR against the opposite party no.2 and her family members, in which the charge sheet was submitted and after submission of charge sheet the instant complaint case has been lodged by the opposite party no.2 to put a pressure upon the applicants herein not to proceed in the said case against the opposite party no.2 and her family members. Therefore, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that it is nothing but a counter blast case lodged by the opposite party no.2, thus the same is a malicious prosecution on the party of opposite party no.2. Therefore, he seeks quashing of the entire proceeding of the instant complaint case against the applicants herein.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA for the State submits that in the FIR also the applicant no.4 has admitted the incident and also the allegation that the husband of the applicant no.4 has objected the son of the opposite party no.2 and due to which the incident has taken placed. Therefore, both the parties have admitting the incident, as such, and both the parties are claiming that they have sustained injuries. However, the only question remains for determination is who was the actual aggressor in the said incident and that cannot be determined by exercising the jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. which is a subject matter of trial. Thus no interference is called for in the instant case by this Court.

¶10

Having heard the rival submission so made by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record shows that for an incident dated 21.05.2022 an FIR was lodged by applicant no.4 on 23.05.2022 against the opposite party no.2. Subsequent there to on 18.06.2022 an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was lodged by the opposite party no.2 against the applicants herein alleging the same incident and in the said application it is categorically stated that after the incident she has also got to report the incident at the concerned police station. Though the police has received the complaint but no action was taken on her application. Thereafter the same was reported to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh on 06.06.2022 and subsequent thereto the instant application under section 156(3) was filed seeking registration of the FIR, which was later on treated as a complaint case. There upon the statement of the complainant and the witnesses were recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C, making out a categorical case against the applicants herein. Thus from the entire material available on record for the same incident there are two versions from both sides and which version is correct cannot be determined while

¶11

exercising the jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C., which requires a detailed trial and leading the evidence by both the parties. From the material available on record in the instant complaint case a prima-facie case is made out, therefore the applicants herein are being summoned by the trial court for the offence under sections 354, 323, 504, 506, vide order dated 07.08.2023.

¶12

In view therefor, this Court do not find any illegality in the impugned summoning order, accordingly the instant applicant is hereby dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 24.7.2025 VKG

¶14

(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)

¶15

Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raj Kumar and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases