Allahabad High Court
SURENDRA KUMAR AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- CHAWAN PRAKASH
Holding
The Court held that a prima facie case exists and the magistrate’s summoning order cannot be quashed under Section 528 CrPC.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the order of the Additional Civil Judge that summoned them under Sections 323, 427, 504 and 506 of the IPC in a complaint filed by the opposite party. The applicants alleged that the complaint was false, stemmed from a retaliatory motive after they lodged an FIR against the opposite party for assault, and that no offence was made out against them. The opposite party contended that the applicants had indeed entered his house, assaulted him and stole household items, and that the magistrate correctly summoned them based on the complaint and statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of the CrPC. The High Court examined whether a prima‑facie case existed and whether the court could interfere at this stage under Section 482 CrPC. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that a prima‑facie case was present and the disputed defence could not be considered at this interlocutory stage, thus refusing to quash the proceedings. Consequently, the application for quashing was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the summoning order under Sections 323, 427, 504 and 506 IPC can be quashed under Section 528 CrPC.
- Whether a prima facie case exists against the applicants to justify continuation of the criminal proceedings.
- Whether the High Court can interfere with the magistrate’s order at the interlocutory stage under Section 482 CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 200, 202, 482, 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 324, 325, 427, 452, 504, 506
Subjects
- Section 528 CrPC
- quash of criminal proceeding
- prima facie case
- Section 482 CrPC
- summons order
- false complaint
- assault
- theft
- Allahabad High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5113 of 2025
Surendra Kumar And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dileep Singh Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 80
HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.
1. Case called out in revised list. No one appears on behalf of opposite
party No.2. However, learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for
the State are present.
2. Heard Sri Dileep Singh Yadav, learned counsel for applicants and
learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed for
quashing/setting aside the impugned order dated 10.12.2024 passed by
learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C.-I/Judicial
Magistrate, Kannauj as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case
No.3837 of 2024 (Vishambhar Vs. Surendra Kumar) under Sections 323,
427, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kannauj, District-Kannauj.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on 27.08.2023 at about
9:00 p.m., the opposite party No. 2 along with others forcibly entered the
house of the applicants, assaulted them, and abused them. Consequently,
applicant No. 4 lodged an F.I.R. on 29.08.2023 against opposite party No.
2 and others, bearing Case Crime No. 661 of 2023, under Sections 452,
323, 504, and 506 I.P.C. After due investigation, the police submitted a
charge-sheet against opposite party No. 2 and others under Sections 452,
323, 504, 506, 324, and 325 I.P.C. Thereafter, as a counterblast and with
an intention to pressurize the applicants, opposite party No. 2 filed a false
and baseless complaint case against the applicants with respect to an
alleged incident dated 20.05.2024, whereas no such incident ever took
NA528 No. 5113 of 2025
2
place. It is further submitted that the complainant was examined under
Section 200 Cr.P.C., and his witnesses, namely, Aachchelal and Govind,
were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned
Magistrate summoned the applicants under Sections 323, 427, 504, and
506 I.P.C. It is contended that no offence is made out against the
applicants. The learned Magistrate failed to properly appreciate the facts
and circumstances of the case and has committed illegality in passing the
impugned summoning order without due application of judicial mind.
Hence, the impugned order suffers from manifest illegality and is liable to
be set aside.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has opposed the
submissions advanced on behalf of the applicants. It is contended that on
20.05.2024 at about 6:00 p.m., applicant Surendra Kumar was grazing his
animals in the groundnut (mungfali) crop of the complainant. When the
complainant objected and tried to remove the animals from the field, the
applicants became annoyed. Thereafter, at about 7:00 p.m., the applicants
allegedly entered the house of the complainant, abused him, assaulted
him, and committed theft of a T.V., sewing machine, and table fan worth
Rs. 25,000/-. It is further submitted that the complainant has narrated the
entire facts in the complaint and has supported the same in his statement
recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and his witnesses have also
supported the prosecution version in their statements recorded under
Section 202 Cr.P.C. On the basis of the complaint and the statements
recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., as well as the material
available on record, the learned Magistrate has rightly summoned the
applicants. Therefore, the present application is liable to be dismissed.
6. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the allegation against
the applicants is that on 20.05.2024 at about 6:00 p.m., applicant Surendra
Kumar was grazing animals in the groundnut crop of the complainant, and
upon objection by the complainant, the applicants became annoyed and, at
about 7:00 p.m., entered the house of the complainant, abused him,
assaulted him, and committed theft of household articles. The
complainant was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and the witnesses,
namely, Aachchelal and Govind, were examined under Section 202
Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate summoned the applicants under
NA528 No. 5113 of 2025
3
Sections 323, 427, 504, and 506 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate has
assigned cogent and sufficient reasons while passing the impugned
summoning order.
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 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, therefore, the prayer for
quashing the same is hereby refused.
9. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
(Chawan Prakash,J.)
March 19, 2026
Md Faisal
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD FAISAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…