RAJEEV AGRAWALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

         MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1183 of 2025

Rajeev Agrawal
                                                              .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                            .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)           :   Rishab Agrawal, Vinayak Mithal
Counsel for Respondent(s)           :   Raj Deo Singh, G.A.

Court No. - 89
                     HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Prashant Singh, Advocate
holding brief of Sri Raj Deo Singh, learned counsel for private respondent
and Sri R.K. Singh, learned AGA for State respondent.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash
the summoning order dated 17.11.2022 passed by the Court of the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, District Moradabad, in
Complaint Case No. 43023 of 2022 (Vivek Agrawal v. Rajeev Agrawal and
Another), under Sections 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
He has further prayed for quashing the revisional order dated 07.07.2023
passed by the Court of the Sessions Judge, District Moradabad, in Criminal
Revision No. 38 of 2023 (Rajeev Agrawal v. State of Uttar Pradesh &
Another). He has also prayed for quashing the entire proceedings of
Complaint Case No. 43023 of 2022, pending in the Court of the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, District Moradabad.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent is his
maternal brother and that a civil dispute between them has been pending
since the year 2016. The respondent had also instituted Original Suit No. 63
of 2016 (Suresh Chandra Agarwal vs. Show Plywood Private Limited and
Others), but failed to obtain any relief therein. It is alleged that the
respondent lodged an FIR being Case Crime No. 81 of 2021 under Sections
323, 504, 506, and 392 IPC against the petitioner. In the said FIR, it was
falsely alleged that on 26.10.2020, the petitioner, along with his associates,
robbed and assaulted the respondent near National Highway-24 (NH-24),
Police Station Mudhapandey, District Moradabad. It was further submitted
                                                             A227 No. 1183 of 2025
                                  2


that the matter was thoroughly investigated and the allegations were found to
be false. The mobile location of the petitioner did not place him at the scene
of the alleged incident. Consequently, a final report was submitted.
Thereafter, the respondent filed a protest petition, which was treated as a
complaint case. In Complaint Case No. 43023 of 2022, the respondent
produced two witnesses, both of whom are his friends and had also been
produced in another complaint case filed by the respondent against other
persons. Relying upon the statements of the respondent and his witnesses,
the petitioner was summoned by order dated 17.11.2022 to face trial under
Sections 323, 504, and 506 IPC. It was submitted that neither was the
petitioner found involved in the alleged offence nor was any recovery made
from him during investigation, which resulted in submission of the final
report. These material facts were allegedly overlooked by the Trial Court
while passing the summoning order, which was based solely on the
statements of interested witnesses. It was further submitted that a purely civil
dispute has been given a criminal colour, and therefore, the summoning
order dated 17.11.2022 suffers from perversity. Aggrieved by the said order,
the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No.38 of 2023 (Rajeev Agrawal
vs. State of U.P. and Others), which was dismissed without proper
consideration of the evidence collected during investigation. It was thus
contended that both the orders passed by the Trial Court as well as the
Revisional Court are illegal and liable to be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned AGA for the State as well as for the private
respondent submitted that the respondent sustained injuries during the
alleged incident, which were medically examined on the very next day. It
was argued that the respondent suffered as many as five injuries, and the
existence of such injuries negates the possibility of false implication. It was
further submitted that the pendency of civil litigation cannot absolve the
petitioner of criminal liability if he has, in fact, assaulted the respondent. The
prosecution case cannot be discarded merely on account of the pendency of a
civil dispute. It was also submitted that the Trial Court, while passing the
summoning order under Section 202 Cr.P.C., was satisfied that sufficient
grounds existed to proceed against the petitioner. Such satisfaction, having
been affirmed by the Revisional Court, cannot be re-evaluated at this stage.
It was therefore contended that no interference is warranted with the
impugned orders.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders
                                                                                             A227 No. 1183 of 2025
                                                                   3


                                    passed by the courts below.

                                    6. It is true that a final report was submitted in the FIR lodged against the
                                    petitioner. However, once the protest petition was treated as a complaint
                                    case, the said final report lost its significance, and the Court proceeded on
                                    the basis of the statements of the complainant and his witnesses. So far as
                                    the contention regarding the witnesses being interested witnesses is
                                    concerned, the same involves disputed questions of fact, which can only be
                                    adjudicated during the course of trial. At this stage, it would not be
                                    appropriate to record any finding on such issues.

                                    7. Accordingly, both the impugned orders are upheld, and the writ petition
                                    is dismissed.

                                    May 12, 2026
                                    Mukesh
                                                                                             (Anil Kumar-X,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MUKESH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad