Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14177 of 2021 Applicant :- Satya Prakash And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Mustafa,Byas Kumar Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Byas Kumar Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Gambhir Singh, learned AGA for the State.
2. This Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.885 of 2018 (Munni Devi Vs. Satya Prakash and others) and the consequential summoning order dated 29.03.2019 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar by means of which, the applicants have been summoned to face trial under Sections 147, 323, 504, 354 and 452 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali Lotan, District-Siddharth Nagar on the ground that dispute had arisen over a toy of a child on 11.08.2013 between the family members of the applicants and the opposite party no.2, when opposite party no.2 had threatened son of applicant no.4, namely, Ashutosh and had started beating Ashutosh by stick, kick and fist, and in the said incident, Ashutosh had received serious injuries, when applicant no.4 had gone to lodge complaint to the family members of opposite party no.2, thereafter, applicant no.4 had lodged N.C.R. No.23 of 2013 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC. It is submitted that though, incident took place on 11.08.2013, a complaint case No.495 of 2018 was registered by Munni Devi Vs. Radhey Shyam and others and, there are series of incidents which took place, thereafter, different complaint cases were registered.
3. It is submitted that opposite party has developed a false and frivolous story and has filed a complaint case arbitrarily. It is submitted that injuries have been caused on both sides and false cause of action has been shown on two different occasions. On such pretext, aforesaid relief has been sought.
4. However, a perusal of the order reveals that after taking into consideration statements of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and then statements of witnesses P.W.-1, Vinod Kumar and P.W.-2-Narayani, under Section 202 Cr.P.C., accused have been summoned vide impugned order dated 29.03.2019.
5. Law in this regard is settled, as has been laid down in case of Gulam Mohd. Kabir Mohd. Mir and another Vs. State of Maharashtra; 2008 Cr.LJ 2426 (2432), wherein, it has been held that at the time of issuing process what Magistrate is required to find out is whether there is a prima facie case for issuance of process. The Magistrate has to take into consideration inherent improbabilities appearing on the face of the complaint or in the evidence led by the complainant in support of the allegations. The Magistrate has to apply his judicial mind to find out whether an offence under the provisions of IPC has been spelt out prima facie or not.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the above-mentioned case law, I am of the firm view that there is no illegality in the view taken by the court below calling for any interference, therefore, Application fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.8.2021 Ashutosh