Shri Kumar Gupta and 6 Others Vs State of Up and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9758 of 2024

¶3

Shri Kumar Gupta And 6 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Jitendra Singh : Amit Kumar Malviya, G.A., Rishi Kesh Malviya

¶6

Court No. - 80

¶7

HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

¶8

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

¶9

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 29.09.2022 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 533 of 2021, Bhagwan Das v. Shri Kumar Gupta and others, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Shikandarpur Vaish, District Kasganj, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj.

¶10

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicants that marriage of opposite party no.2 was solemnized with applicant no.7 on 27.06.2020. Opposite party no.2 filed a complaint against the applicants alleging therein that on 05.07.2021, the applicants came to the house of opposite party no.2, hurled abuses to him, threatened him for taking divorce with the applicant no.7 and demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- from him and also committed marpeet with him. The further allegation is that the applicants have snatched ornaments from opposite party no.2. Thereafter, the complainant got himself examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses namely Nirpendra Singh and Moni @ Mohani under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 29.09.2022has summoned the applicants to face trial under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. Thereafter, the instant application has been filed to quash the summoning order as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶11

A482 No. 9758 of 2024

¶12

2

¶13

It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicants that no such incident was happened on the said date of incident. The general allegation has been made against all the applicants. They have not snatched any ornament from opposite party no.2. The learned Trial Court has wrongly summoned the applicants to face trial, whereas no such offence is made out against the applicants. Thus, the impugned summoning order as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid case may be quashed.

¶14

Per contra , learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer advanced by the learned Counsel for the applicants and submitted that the learned Magistrate has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. The summoning order as been passed as per the facts of this case. Therefore, the present application may be dismissed.

¶15

As per the fact of the case record, marriage of opposite party no.2 was solemnized with applicant no.7 on 27.06.2020. Opposite party no.2 filed a complaint against the applicants alleging therein that on 05.07.2021, the applicants came to the house of opposite party no.2, hurled abuses to him, threatened him for taking divorce with the applicant no.7 and demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- from him and also committed marpeet with him. The further allegation is that the applicants have snatched ornaments from opposite party no.2. Thereafter, the complainant got himself examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses namely Nirpendra Singh and Moni @ Mohani under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 29.09.2022 has summoned the applicants to face trial under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. While passing the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has taken into consideration the facts stated in the complaint as well as the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. as well as witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C.

¶16

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

¶17

A482 No. 9758 of 2024

¶18

3

¶19

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.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the aforementioned case.

¶21

Accordingly, the application is dismissed .

¶22

(Chawan Prakash,J.)

¶23

February 24, 2026 Vijay

¶24

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

Shri Kumar Gupta and 6 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Kumar Gupta and 6 Others v. State of Up 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

Vidhan Kulshreshtha vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil Murti Anchal and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamlesh Verma and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Smt Manju Ram and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjeev @ Karu and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Saurabh Dwivedi and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another