Allahabad High Court

RAKESH AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 23 February 2026
Bench: CHAWAN PRAKASH

Holding

The High Court held that the application under Section 482 CrPC cannot be entertained as a prima facie case exists and the dispute of fact must be decided by the trial court, so the summoning order stands.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the summoning order dated 31‑05‑2023 issued by the Judicial Magistrate, Etah, in a complaint alleging offences under Sections 352, 448, 504, 427 and 506 IPC. The applicants contended that the complaint was false, motivated by a civil land dispute with the opposite party, and that the magistrate had not applied his mind to the material on record. The State and the opposite party opposed the prayer, arguing that the magistrate had properly considered the complainant’s statement under Section 200 CrPC and witness statements under Section 202 CrPC and rightly summoned the applicants. The High Court held that the matter involved a dispute of fact and a prima facie case existed, which could not be examined under Section 482 at this stage, and that the applicants could raise their defence in the trial court. Consequently, the application to quash the proceedings and the summoning order was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the summoning order at the preliminary stage.
Whether a prima facie case exists against the applicants warranting continuation of the criminal proceedings.
Whether the Judicial Magistrate erred in passing the summoning order without applying his mind to the material on record.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 200, 202, 227, 228, 239, 245(2), 482

Subjects

Section 482 CrPC
quash criminal proceedings
prima facie case
jurisdiction of High Court
summoning order
civil dispute influencing criminal complaint
false allegations

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21615 of 2024

Rakesh And 4 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Umesh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ajendra Kumar, G.A.

Court No. - 80
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

1. Heard Sri Umesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, learned
A.G.A. for the State, Sri Ajendra Kumar, learned counsel for opposite
party No.2 and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed for
quashing the entire proceedings as well as summoning order dated
31.5.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Etah in Complaint
Case No.8976 of 2022 (Netra Pal Singh Vs. Rakesh and others) under
Sections 352, 448, 504, 427, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Malavan, District
Etah, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Etah.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants and
opposite party No. 2 are members of the same family and there exists a
civil dispute between the parties with regard to agricultural land. It is
contended that, on account of the said civil dispute, opposite party No. 2,
with an ulterior motive to harass and humiliate the applicants, has filed
the present complaint. He further submits that the allegations made in the
complaint are false and baseless and that, on 24.06.2022, the applicants
neither harassed nor humiliated opposite party No. 2. It is submitted that
opposite party No. 2 got himself examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and
the statements of the witnesses, namely, Poonam and Harveer, were
recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the applicants are innocent and
have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is also contended that
the learned Magistrate, without properly appreciating the material
A482 No. 21615 of 2024
2

available on record and without applying judicial mind, has illegally
passed the impugned summoning order dated 31.05.2023. Therefore, the
impugned summoning order dated 31.05.2023 is liable to be set aside by
this Court.

5. 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 the learned Magistrate, upon due
consideration of the statement 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.

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.
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. Moreover, the
applicants have got a right of discharge under Section 239, 245(2) or
227/228 Cr.P.C. as the case may be, before the court below and they are
free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the
trial court.

7. The prayer for quashing the proceedings of case as well as summoning
order is refused.

8. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed.

(Chawan Prakash,J.)
February 24, 2026
Md Faisal

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…