Allahabad High Court

SHRI KUMAR GUPTA AND 6 OTHERSversusState of UP AND ANOTHER

Decided: 23 February 2026
Bench: CHAWAN PRAKASH

Holding

The application under Section 482 CrPC is dismissed as there is a prima facie case and no ground to quash the proceedings.

Summary

The applicants filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash a summoning order dated 29‑09‑2022 and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 533 of 2021, in which they were charged under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code for alleged assault, criminal intimidation and insult. The complaint alleged that the applicants had threatened the complainant, demanded money and allegedly committed marpeet and stolen ornaments. The trial magistrate, after recording the complainant’s statement under Section 200 CrPC and witness statements under Section 202 CrPC, issued the summons. The applicants contended that no offence was made out against them and that the summons was illegal. The High Court held that the dispute concerned factual issues and that a prima facie case existed; therefore, the court could not intervene to quash the proceedings at this stage. Consequently, the application under Section 482 was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can quash the summoning order and the criminal proceedings at the stage of a prima facie case.
Whether the trial magistrate committed any illegality in issuing the summons under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC.
Whether the allegations against the applicants, if contested on facts, can be a ground for dismissal of the complaint under Section 482 CrPC.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 200, 202, 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 504, 506

Subjects

Section 482 CrPC
quash of criminal proceedings
prima facie case
magistrate summons
assault
criminal intimidation
Indian Penal Code

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9758 of 2024

Shri Kumar Gupta And 6 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jitendra Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Amit Kumar Malviya, G.A., Rishi Kesh
Malviya

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

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.
A482 No. 9758 of 2024
2

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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
A482 No. 9758 of 2024
3

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.

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

9. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

(Chawan Prakash,J.)
February 24, 2026
Vijay

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…