Applicants sought quashing of a summoning order in a complaint under Sections 406, 323, 504, 506 IPC filed as an alleged counterblast during a matrimonial dispute. The court found the trial court had recorded prima facie satisfaction after examining the complaint and witness statements and declined to interfere.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:41961
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
(Sl. No.858)
Court No. - 53
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8236 of 2025
Applicant :- Chhotelal And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Mishra,Ankit Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
1 . Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Gyan Bahadur Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 09.12.2024 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya in Complaint Case No.173 of 2024, under Sections 406, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Bidhuna, District Auraiya, pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Bidhuna, Auraiya.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the daughter of the applicant no.1 was married to the son of the opposite party no.2. There arose a matrimonial dispute between the parties. In pursuance thereof, various complaints have been filed by the daughter of the applicant no.1 against the opposite party no.2 and his family members and in pursuance of the aforesaid matrimonial dispute the instant complaint has also been lodged by the opposite party no.2 against the applicants herein.
4. After recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the trial court after recording its satisfaction that a prima facie case has been made out against the applicants herein, has summoned the applicants herein for the offence under Sections 406, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the instant complaint is nothing but a counterblast to the complaints and proceedings initiated by the daughter of the applicant no.1 herein. Therefore, he seeks quashing of the summoning order dated 09.10.2024 passed against the applicants herein.
6. This Court has gone through impugned order and from the impugned order it is apparent that the trial court has gone through entire complaint as well as the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and after having recorded its prima facie satisfaction has summoned the applicants herein.
7. In view thereof, only because it appears to be a counterblast case and the veracity of the same cannot be doubted. In view thereof, this Court does not find any good reason to interfere with the summoning order dated 09.10.2024, which has been passed considering the material available on record. Accordingly, the instant application is dismissed .
Order Date :- 21.3.2025 Shubham Arya
(Anish Kumar Gupta, J.)
Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM ARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the summoning order in a counterblast complaint arising from a matrimonial dispute should be quashed.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Chhotelal
State of U.P.
Anish Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
