Allahabad High Court

AKHILESH SINGH @ MALLU AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 26 April 2026
Bench: CHAWAN PRAKASH

Holding

The High Court refused to quash the criminal proceeding, holding that the magistrate correctly exercised jurisdiction to summon the applicants on a prima facie basis.

Summary

The applicants filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a summoning order dated 20‑07‑2018 issued by Judicial Magistrate‑I, Gorakhpur, and the related criminal proceedings (Case No. 1050 of 2017) for offences under Sections 323, 452, 504 and 506 IPC. The dispute arose from a family feud after the sister of the first applicant married the son of the opposite party; the sister lodged an FIR under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 352 IPC and the Domestic Violence Act, after which the opposite party filed a counter‑complaint alleging assault, robbery and looting of Rs 1,00,000 and gold ornaments. The magistrate examined the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C., found a prima facie case and summoned the applicants. The applicants contended that the allegations were false, no medical evidence of injury existed and the proceeding was a retaliatory “counter‑blast”. The State argued that the magistrate correctly applied the law by assessing only the prima facie material and that the charge‑sheet disclosed offences. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the High Court held that at this stage only the existence of a prima facie case can be examined and the disputed facts cannot be adjudicated, therefore refusing to quash the proceedings and dismissing the application.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can quash a criminal proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when the magistrate has only found a prima facie case.
Whether the summoning order dated 20‑07‑2018 was vitiated by any illegality or irregularity.
Whether the counter‑complaint constitutes a false or malicious proceeding warranting dismissal.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 200, 202, 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 452, 504, 506
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — s. 3, 4

Subjects

Section 482 CrPC
quash of criminal proceeding
prima facie case
counter complaint
domestic violence
assault
robbery
magistrate jurisdiction

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1579 of 2021

Akhilesh Singh @ Mallu And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sudhanshu Pandey

Court No. - 79
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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
A482 No. 1579 of 2021
2

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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.
A482 No. 1579 of 2021
3

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.

7. 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.

8. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

(Chawan Prakash,J.)
April 27, 2026
Md Faisal

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…