Dismissed¶¶17

Ram Autar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2025A482/8048/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court dismisses Section 482 Cr.P.C. application against summoning order in complaint case under Section 323 IPC, finding allegations of assault and medical evidence sufficient to sustain proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is misconceived and liable to be dismissed because the complaint contains allegations of beating and breaking household goods, an incident on 13.08.2020, and a prescription from Balrampur Hospital, which show that the summoning order was not unjustified. ¶¶16

Ram Autar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8048 of 2025

¶3

Ram Autar And 3 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Another	Home Lko. And		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Mohammad Kumar	Irfan	Siddiqui, Vivek
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 10

¶8

HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

¶9

Heard Sri Mohd. Irfan Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶10

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging impugned summoning order dated 02.12.2024 passed by learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate Custom, Lucknow in Complaint Case No.4903 of 2020, CRN No.UPLK04-056236-2020, under Section 323 IPC, Police Station Malihabad, District Lucknow.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondent No.2 in counter blast to an F.I.R. No.368 of 2020, under Sections 308, 323, 506 IPC, Police Station Malihabad, District Lucknow North (Commissionerate Lucknow) lodged by wife of the applicant No.1 in regard to incident dated 11.08.2020 at about 06:00 PM, in which the side of the applicants have suffered injuries. He further submits that the incident dated 13.08.2020 has wrongly been shown as no such incident has taken place. The said application has been treated and registered as complaint case and the applicants have been summoned, which could not have been done.

¶12

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants and on perusal of material placed on record of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is apparent that the incident dated 11.08.2020 at

¶13

A482 No. 8048 of 2025

¶14

¶15

(Rajnish Kumar,J.)

¶16

about 05:30 PM is not disputed and only plea is that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed in a counter blast to the aforesaid FIR lodged by the wife of the applicant No.1, whereas the respondent No.2 has not suffered any injury, however, on perusal of the complaint and the impugned order filed by the respondent No.2, it is apparent that allegations of beating and breaking of the household goods have been made and on account of the incident dated 11.08.2020, an incident is shown on 13.08.2020 at 04:00 PM, in which respondent No.2 has also suffered injuries and the prescription of Balrampur Hospital, Lucknow has been placed on record, which has not been placed before this Court. Thus, submission of learned counsel for the applicants is misconceived and the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

¶17

Dismissed accordingly.

¶18

September 25, 2025 Saurabh

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Autar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Autar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

Saima Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 4 Others

Onkar Agrahari and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Raju Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Onkar Agrahari and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ram Autar and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sanjay Singh Alias Sanjay Singh Yadav vs State of U.P. and 2 Others