Dismissed¶14

Rohit and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Jun 2025NA528/18439/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 18439 of 2025 (decided 21.7.2025, Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) - quashing of complaint case and summoning order refused; counter blast / malicious prosecution plea rejected where injuries (head injury, incised wound) medically corroborated complaint; offences under sections 392, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC; Complaint Case No. 116 of 2021; NCR by father of applicant no. 1; incident dated 6.11.2021; complaint filed 7.12.2021; P.S. Kotwali Kalpi, District Jalaun; prima facie case; no precedent relied upon.

What did the court decide?

On the allegations in the complaint, it cannot be said that no such incident as alleged has occurred or that the applicants are falsely implicated. ¶13

Rohit and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:118672

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶3

(SN.37)

¶4

Court No. - 78

¶5

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 18439 of 2025

¶6

Applicant :- Rohit And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd Raees Ansari,Pramod Kumar Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

¶8

Heard Shri Pramod Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Anjani Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

The instant application under section 528 BNSS has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 116 of 2021 (Shiv Kumar Vs. Rohit and others) under sections 392, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC police station Kotwali Kalpi District Jalaun as well as the summoning order dated 13.10.2023 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge (DAA) Jalaun at Orai.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that with regard to the same incident an NCR was lodged by the father of the applicant no. 1. As a counter blast to the same incident, the complaint has been lodged by the opposite party no. 2 and applicants herein have been summoned vide impugned order dated 13.10.2024 for the offences under sections 392, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the instant complaint is nothing but a counter blast case and thus malicious prosecution and seeks quashing of the entire proceedings.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that the opposite party no. 2 has sustained injuries which were medically examined on the date of the incident itself. He further submits that the applicant have already lodged an NCR which is not denied nor they are disputing that incident has taken place. Therefore, it cannot be said that no incident has occurred and there is false implication of the applicants herein by the opposite party no 2. Allegation made in the complaint are duly corroborated by the medical evidence. Thus a cognizable offence is made out against the applicants herein for which they have been rightly summoned vide order dated 13.10.2024 and no interference is called for in the aforesaid

¶12

proceedings against the applicants.

¶13

Having heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties this court has carefully gone through the entire record. From perusal of the record it is apparent that for an incident dated 6.11.2021 the opposite party has filed complaint case on 7.12.2021 alleging therein that in the morning of 6.11.2021 while he was sitting outside his house, the applicants herein armed with Lathi, Danda and Axe came there and started abusing him and torned his clothes and also snatched Rs.1,220/- from his pocket. It is further alleged that when he ran inside his house to save himself, the applicants herein assaulted him by Axe. His mother and son rushed to rescue him and they were also assaulted by the applicants herein. In the said incident the opposite party no. 2 has sustained injuries on his head which were medically examined at the District Hospital. The incident is also corroborated by the medial evidence which shows the head injury on the opposite party no. 2. Thus from the allegations made it cannot be said that no such incident as alleged in the complaint has occurred and the applicants are falsely implicated. Since in the instant case the opposite party no. 2 has sustained head injury and incised wound, a prima facie case is made out against the applicants. Therefore, this court do not find any error in the impugned summoning order.

¶14

Accordingly, the instant application is dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 21.7.2025 o.k.

¶16

(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)

¶17

Digitally signed by :- OM KRISHNA CHOUDHARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rohit and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit and 3 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

Belal Ahmad vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mamta vs State of Up and Another

Shekhar Singh Alias Shekhar and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Khemchandra Alias Rahul Prajapati and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Shraddha vs State of U.P. and 5 Others