Akhilesh Singh @ Mallu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1579 of 2021

Akhilesh Singh @ Mallu And 2 Others

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: :	Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari G.A., Sudhanshu Pandey

¶5

Court No. - 79

¶6

HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

¶7

Heard Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Sudhanshu Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 20.7.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Gorakhpur as well as entire proceeding of Case No.1050 of 2017 (Kaushalaya Vs. Akhilesh) under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Belipar, District Gorakhpur.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicants submitted that marriage of sister of applicant No.1 was solemnized with son of opposite party No.2 on 13.6.2014. After sometime of marriage opposite party No.2 and her family members started harassing her sister. Thereafter her sister lodged a First Information Report as Case Crime No.698 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 352 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Sahajanwa, District Gorakhpur regarding incident dated 27.10.2017. It is further submitted that being aggrieved of the said incident and with a view to make pressure upon the applicants, the present complaint has been filed against the applicants as a counter blast regarding the incident dated 4.12.2017. The complainant has alleged that the applicants came to her house, assaulted her and her son, and looted Rs.1,00,000 in cash along with gold ornaments. It is submitted that despite alleging such a serious assault, no injury report or medical evidence has been brought on record in support of the complaint allegations. It is submitted that opposite party

¶10

A482 No. 1579 of 2021

¶11

2

¶12

No.2 examined herself under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and also produced her witnesses, namely, Chhotelal and Jai Prakash, whose statements were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate has summoned the applicants. It is also submitted that the present matter is a counterblast and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 have opposed the prayer and contended that the learned Magistrate has not committed any illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned summoning order. It is submitted that, at the stage of taking cognizance, the Court is only required to examine whether a prima facie case is made out or not. He further submits that the charge sheet has been filed after due investigation and the material collected therein clearly discloses the commission of offences against the applicants. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate, upon due consideration of the charge sheet, statements of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., has rightly summoned the applicants. Therefore, the present application is liable to be dismissed.

¶14

As per the facts of this case, the opposite party No.2 filed a complaint case against the applicants and two other persons regarding incident dated 27.10.2017 with an allegations that applicants, along with two others persons, allegedly entered the house of opposite party No. 2, assaulted her and his son, damaged household articles, and looted Rs.1,00,000/- and gold ornaments. The complainant was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and witnesses, namely, Chhotelal and Jai Prakash, were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate formed an opinion that a prime facie offence is made out against the applicants and summoned the applicants under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C.

¶15

From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs.

¶16

A482 No. 1579 of 2021

¶17

3

¶18

State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 . The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.

¶20

Accordingly, the application is dismissed .

¶21

(Chawan Prakash,J.)

¶22

April 27, 2026 Md Faisal

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MOHD FAISAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Akhilesh Singh @ Mallu and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhilesh Singh @ Mallu and 2 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ankit Dwivedi and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Gulam Rasool and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajaruddin @ Salman Audi vs State of U.P. and Another

Shainky Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Kumar Patel and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mukesh and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another