ANIL KUMAR BARANWAL AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 26805 of 2025

Anil Kumar Baranwal And Another
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)                          :    Hari Keshav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                     :    G.A.

Court No. - 75
                        HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Hari Keshav, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri
Devendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the State and perused the
records.

3. A compliance affidavit dated 19.08.2025 of the State is on record in
which para 3 it is averred that notice of the present petition has been
served on the complainant, the proof of service of notice is annexed as
annexure 1 to the same. Despite service of notice no one appears on
behalf of the opposite party no.2 even in the revised list.

4. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the
applicants Anil Kumar Baranwal and Aashish Kumar Baranwal, with
the prayers to set aside the summoning order dated 07.03.2025 and entire
proceedings of Complaint Case No. 0080 of 2024 (Seema Sonkar Vs.
Anil Kumar Baranwal and others), under Sections 323, 427, 504, 506 IPC
and 3(1)(da) SC/St Act, P.S. Muhammadabad Gohna, District Mau,
pending in the court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Mau and with a further
prayer to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case, during the
pendency of the present application.

5. The facts of the case are that a First Information Report was lodged on
07.07.2022 under Sections 34, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(da)
SC/ST Act by opposite party no.2/Seema Sonkar against the applicants
and three other persons which was investigated and a final report dated
07.08.2022 was submitted in favour of the accused. The informant then
filed a protest petition dated 01.08.2023 with the prayer that the final
report dated 07.08.2022 be rejected and the accused be summoned to face
trial. The court concerned treated the same as a complaint and proceeded
for enquiry in which the statement of the informant/complainant/Seema
Sonkar was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. on 10.09.2024 and that of
                                                       NA528 No. 26805 of 2025
                                2


her witnesses Sugreev and Mohd. Sajid as PW-1 and PW-2 respectively
were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The court of the Special Judge,
SC/ST Act, District Mau vide judgment and order dated 07.03.2025
summoned the applicants for offences under Sections 323, 427, 504, 506
IPC and Section 3(1)Da SC/ST Act to face trial. The present application
under Section 528 BNSS has thus been filed with the prayers as aforesaid.

6. In the present matter, three persons namely Seema Sonkar, Indal and
Vedeshi have received injuries and were medically examined under the
orders of the District Magistrate and CMO concerned dated 21.06.2022.
The medical reports are annexure 9 to the affidavit in support of the
application U/s 528 BNSS.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have
been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the entire
prosecution story is fabricated and fallacious. It is further submitted while
placing para 5, 6 and 7 of the affidavit that the applicant no.2 had lodged
an FIR on 30.04.2022 against the opposite party no.2 and others in which
he had received injuries and were medically examined after which its
investigation concluded and a charge sheet was submitted against the
opposite party no.2 and other persons and thus counterblast to the said
case the present FIR has been lodged on 07.07.2022. It is submitted that
the injuries of the three injured are simple in nature and thus a conclusion
can be drawn that they are fabricated and false. It is further submitted that
the summoning order is a non speaking order and after consideration the
prosecution case, the court concerned has not given its finding and
satisfaction but has summoned the applicants. It is further submitted that
the applicant no.1 is a senior citizen and thus his participation in the
matter cannot be sought out. It is further submitted that the protest
petition has been filed after one year after filing of the final report
inasmuch as the FIR is dated 07.07.2022 after which the protest petition
was filed on 01.08.2023 which is afterthought just in order to falsely
implicate and harass the applicants. It is further submitted that the petition
be thus allowed.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for
quashing.

9. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the
records, it is evident that subsequent to lodging of an FIR, the matter was
investigated and final report was submitted. A protest petition was filed
which was treated as a complaint and enquiry was done by the trial court
concerned. Subsequently the applicants have been summoned vide order
dated 07.03.2024. The proceedings and the summoning order are under
challenge before this Court. In the present mater, three persons have
received injures and have been medically examined. The fact thus
remains that there are three injured and merely looking to the nature of
injuries cannot be drawn that the same are fabricated. Further, in so far as
                                                                                         NA528 No. 26805 of 2025
                                                                    3


                                    the malafides are concerned, the same cannot be looked at the stage for
                                    quashing in view of the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of
                                    Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh etc. : AIR 2023 SC
                                    1987 and State of M.P. v. Awadh Kishore Gupta : (2004) 1 SCC 691.
                                    The perusal of the summoning order shows that the court has considered
                                    the material on record and also recorded its finding as required and then
                                    summoned the accused. There is no irregularity and illegality in the same.

                                    10. In view of the same, looking to the facts of the case, the order
                                    summoning the applicants does not suffer from any illegality or
                                    irregularity. This Court does not find to be a fit case for interference.

                                    11. The present petition thus stands rejected.

                                    12. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

                                    13. Registrar (Compliance) to communicate this order to the concerned
                                    trial court forthwith.


                                                                                             (Samit Gopal,J.)
                                    May 5, 2026
                                    M. ARIF




Digitally signed by :-
MOHAMMAD ARIF
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad