Smt. Sarojani v. Babli and others) against the

1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. By means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have assailed the summoning order dated 22.03.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 19, Barabanki as well as revisional order dated 12.02.2025 wherein while rejecting the revision and summoning order has been upheld.

3. The brief facts stated by the applicants are that respondent No. 2 has filed a complaint registered as Complaint Case No. 216/2023 (Smt. Sarojani Vs. Babli and others) against the applicants stating that she was the only daughter of her father Ram Singh and that her father/Rama Shankar has executed a sale deed in the year 1981 in favour of respondents and therefore the said land could not be mutated in her name.

4. It has further been stated that subsequently a forged will has been got executed and the dispute pertaining to the ownership of the said land is pending in the revenue Court. The incident by which the present proceedings have arisen occurred on 20.11.2023 at about 02.00 p.m. with the complainant . because he has gone to sow field and respondents armed with lathi and danda have assailed the complainant and her cousin.

5. The statements were recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statement of witness were also recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and on the basis of material summoning order dated 22.03.2024 was issued by the Additional Chief Magistrate.

6. The challenge was made to the summoning order before the revisional court which is also gone into the merits of the case from where it was found that prima facie the offence seems to have made out against the applicants under Section 323, 506 I.P.C. The said allegations were duly supported in the statement of the complainant as well as witness and consequently did not find any reason to interfere with the summoning order.

7. Before this Court learned counsel for applicants has submitted that the dispute between the complainant and the accused is pending before the Civil Court and merely on account of the said civil suit a false complaint has been lodged against the accused/applicants.

8. He has further submitted that wherever the dispute is pending before civil courts then criminal proceedings should not be allowed to proceed with regard to the same facts and accordingly prayed for quashing of the summoning order as well as revisional order impugned in the present case.

9. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand has opposed the matter.

10. It is stated that dispute which is pending in the civil court pertains to the ownership of the disputed land pertaining to gata No. 1462, rakba 0.064 hec. 1483 rakba 0.080 hec. and 1489 rakba 0.177 hec. 1673 rakba 0.060 hec. 1688 rakba 0.057 hec. and 1693 rakba 0.077 hect., situated at Village Sonikpur, Pargana and Tehsil Haidergarh, District Barabanki and merely because a civil dispute is pending and during pendency of the civil suit, summoning proceedings are drawn between the parties then it cannot be said that the said allegations would be mala fide merely because civil dispute is pending. It is stated that these facts which are to be civil in nature considering the incident and circumstances therein, accordingly from the present facts it cannot be said that present proceedings have been initiated only on account of mala fide.

11. Considering the rival contention of the parties, it is noticed that undoubtedly a civil dispute is pending between the parties. The allegations made by the complainant that on the date of incident the accused had come to the field and assaulted the complainant and her cousin who received injuries. The said statement was supported by them during the proceedings under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and it is only on the material adduced at that stage summoning orders were issued.This Court does not find any reason to disbelieve the statements made before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and finds that there were sufficient grounds and materials to issue summons to the applicants.

12. In the considered opinion of this Court, the magistrate at this stage has undoubted wide discretion in the matter which is to be judicially exercised by and once the magistrate has exercised his discretion in a judicious way it is not justified even for the High Court to substitute its own discretion for that of the Magistrate or to indulge itself into the exercise of examining the case on merits. In tis regard following observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Nagawaa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi & Ors, 1976 (3) SCC 736, may be recalled:- "The Magistrate has been given an undoubted discretion in the matter and the discretion has to be judicially exercised by him. Once the Magistrate has exercise his discretion it is not for the High Court, or even this Court, to substitute its own discretion for. that of the Magistrate or to examine the case on merits with view to find out whether or not the allegations in the complaint, if proved, would ultimately end in conviction of the accused. These considerations, in our opinion, are totally foreign to the scope and ambit of an inquiry under s. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which culminates into an order under s. 204 of the Code."

13. Merely because a civil suit is pending will not be a ground for interfering the present matter unless and until it is shown that the complaint was false and it was not for the occurrence misprobable for the occurrence of the said incidence. The applicants would have full opportunity before the trial court but the court cannot consider any material adduced by the applicants at this stage. Apart from the above, it is found that the applicants merely before the Magistrate to issue summoning order accordingly the present applicant is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 21.3.2025 Ravi/ RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. By means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have assailed the summoning order dated 22.03.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 19, Barabanki as well as revisional order dated 12.02.2025 wherein while rejecting the revision and summoning order has been upheld.

3. The brief facts stated by the applicants are that respondent No. 2 has filed a complaint registered as Complaint Case No. 216/2023 (Smt. Sarojani Vs. Babli and others) against the applicants stating that she was the only daughter of her father Ram Singh and that her father/Rama Shankar has executed a sale deed in the year 1981 in favour of respondents and therefore the said land could not be mutated in her name.

4. It has further been stated that subsequently a forged will has been got executed and the dispute pertaining to the ownership of the said land is pending in the revenue Court. The incident by which the present proceedings have arisen occurred on 20.11.2023 at about 02.00 p.m. with the complainant . because he has gone to sow field and respondents armed with lathi and danda have assailed the complainant and her cousin.

5. The statements were recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statement of witness were also recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and on the basis of material summoning order dated 22.03.2024 was issued by the Additional Chief Magistrate.

6. The challenge was made to the summoning order before the revisional court which is also gone into the merits of the case from where it was found that prima facie the offence seems to have made out against the applicants under Section 323, 506 I.P.C. The said allegations were duly supported in the statement of the complainant as well as witness and consequently did not find any reason to interfere with the summoning order.

7. Before this Court learned counsel for applicants has submitted that the dispute between the complainant and the accused is pending before the Civil Court and merely on account of the said civil suit a false complaint has been lodged against the accused/applicants.

8. He has further submitted that wherever the dispute is pending before civil courts then criminal proceedings should not be allowed to proceed with regard to the same facts and accordingly prayed for quashing of the summoning order as well as revisional order impugned in the present case.

9. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand has opposed the matter.

10. It is stated that dispute which is pending in the civil court pertains to the ownership of the disputed land pertaining to gata No. 1462, rakba 0.064 hec. 1483 rakba 0.080 hec. and 1489 rakba 0.177 hec. 1673 rakba 0.060 hec. 1688 rakba 0.057 hec. and 1693 rakba 0.077 hect., situated at Village Sonikpur, Pargana and Tehsil Haidergarh, District Barabanki and merely because a civil dispute is pending and during pendency of the civil suit, summoning proceedings are drawn between the parties then it cannot be said that the said allegations would be mala fide merely because civil dispute is pending. It is stated that these facts which are to be civil in nature considering the incident and circumstances therein, accordingly from the present facts it cannot be said that present proceedings have been initiated only on account of mala fide.

11. Considering the rival contention of the parties, it is noticed that undoubtedly a civil dispute is pending between the parties. The allegations made by the complainant that on the date of incident the accused had come to the field and assaulted the complainant and her cousin who received injuries. The said statement was supported by them during the proceedings under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and it is only on the material adduced at that stage summoning orders were issued.This Court does not find any reason to disbelieve the statements made before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and finds that there were sufficient grounds and materials to issue summons to the applicants.

12. In the considered opinion of this Court, the magistrate at this stage has undoubted wide discretion in the matter which is to be judicially exercised by and once the magistrate has exercised his discretion in a judicious way it is not justified even for the High Court to substitute its own discretion for that of the Magistrate or to indulge itself into the exercise of examining the case on merits. In tis regard following observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Nagawaa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi & Ors, 1976 (3) SCC 736, may be recalled:- "The Magistrate has been given an undoubted discretion in the matter and the discretion has to be judicially exercised by him. Once the Magistrate has exercise his discretion it is not for the High Court, or even this Court, to substitute its own discretion for. that of the Magistrate or to examine the case on merits with view to find out whether or not the allegations in the complaint, if proved, would ultimately end in conviction of the accused. These considerations, in our opinion, are totally foreign to the scope and ambit of an inquiry under s. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which culminates into an order under s. 204 of the Code."

13. Merely because a civil suit is pending will not be a ground for interfering the present matter unless and until it is shown that the complaint was false and it was not for the occurrence misprobable for the occurrence of the said incidence. The applicants would have full opportunity before the trial court but the court cannot consider any material adduced by the applicants at this stage. Apart from the above, it is found that the applicants merely before the Magistrate to issue summoning order accordingly the present applicant is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 21.3.2025 Ravi/ RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench