Dismissed¶¶16

Hariom v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Mar 2026A482/39305/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 CrPC quashing — summoning order dated 04.10.2024, Complaint Case No. 129 of 2024 (Ss. 323/506 IPC), CJ(JD)/JM Atrauli, Aligarh — disputed questions of fact not adjudicable under S.482 — prima facie test per R.P. Kapur, Bhajan Lal, P.P. Sharma, Zandu Pharmaceutical — accused's disputed defence not considered at this stage — application dismissed (Allahabad HC, Chawan Prakash, J.).

What did the court decide?

On the material on record and the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. ¶¶14

Hariom Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning order dated 04.10.2024 passed in Complaint Case No. 129 of 2024 and the entire proceedings thereof should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the contention that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant.

¶¶7

Court's answer

On the material on record and the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant.

¶¶14

Ratio / Principle

All submissions made at the bar relate to disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.; at this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur, Bhajan Lal, P.P. Sharma and Zandu Pharmaceutical, and the disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered.

¶¶14

Key takeaways

No ground is found to quash the aforementioned case; the prayer for quashing the summoning order and proceedings is refused.ratio¶¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (Chawan Prakash, J.; decided March 25, 2026) dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 04.10.2024 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Atrauli, Aligarh, in Complaint Case No. 129 of 2024 (Veerpal Singh v. Hariom) under Sections 323 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Palimukeempur, District Aligarh, together with the entire proceedings of that case. Held: from the material on record it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant; the submissions raised at the bar relate to disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.; at that stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866), State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Cr.) 426), State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma (1992 SCC (Cr.) 192) and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq (2005 SCC (Cr.) 283), and the disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered. Finding no ground to quash, the Court refused the prayer and dismissed the application.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39305 of 2024

¶3

Hariom	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: :	Ravi Shanker Rawet G.A., Vikram Shah Sisodia

¶4

Court No. - 81

¶5

HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

¶6

Heard learned Counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record. No one is present on behalf of opposite party no.2.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the summoning order dated 04.10.2024, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Atrauli, Aligarh, in Complaint Case No. 129 of 2024, Veerpal Singh v. Hariom, under Sections 323 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Palimukeempur, District Aligarh as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that on 15.02.2024, the grandfather of the applicant had lodged a First Information Report against the opposite party no.2 as Case Crime No. 81 of 2024 under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. Opposite party no.2 filed the present compliant regarding the incident dated 19.03.2024 against the applicant whereas no such incident occurred at that time. The applicant had not beaten the opposite party no.2. The applicant is a student and this compliant has been filed with false and baseless allegations just to spoil his career. The opposite party no.2 got himself examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses Teekam Singh and Narendra Kumar under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate has not taken into consideration the statements of complainant and witnesses properly and summoned the applicant under Sections 323 and 506 I.P.C., whereas no prima facie case is made out against the applicant, therefore, the summoning order as well as entire

¶9

A482 No. 39305 of 2024

¶10

¶11

proceedings of the aforesaid case may be quashed.

¶12

Per contra , learned A.G.A. has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint, the statements of the complainant and witnesses and the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the applicants and as such, entire proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶13

As per record, opposite party no.2 filed a compliant against the applicant regarding the incident dated 19.03.2024 in which he has made an allegation that the applicant has abused and beaten him. The opposite party no.2 got himself examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses Teekam Singh and Narendra Kumar under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate has summoned the applicant under Sections 323 and 506 I.P.C.

¶14

From the perusal of the 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 applicant. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred 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. 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.

¶15

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.

¶16

Accordingly, the application is dismissed .

¶17

(Chawan Prakash,J.)

¶18

March 25, 2026 Vijay

¶19

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

Hariom v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariom 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

Ibrahim and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mordhaj and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tarachnad @ Tare and 3 Others vs State of Up and 4 Others

Ibrahim and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Abdul Umar Alias Munne Ansari and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Umashankar Sharma Alias Umashankar Gaur Vs State of U.P. and Another