Dinesh and others v. Lal Bahadur and another) wherein the revision preferred by the

Applicant :- Dinesh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Sri Alok Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. In light of proposed order, notices to respondent No. 2 is dispensed with.

3. By means of present application U/S 482 of Cr.P.C. / 528 B.N.S.S. the applicants have assailed the order dated 19.02.2025 passed in Criminal Revision No. 145/2024 (Dinesh and others Vs. Lal Bahadur and another) wherein the revision preferred by the applicant has been rejected and the summoning order dated 25.03.2023 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Unnao has been upheld.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicants that a complaint was lodged by respondent No. 1 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. stating that on 07.01.2022 at 08.30 p.m. a night when he was at his fields then Dinesh, Ashok, Vishal and Suraj of his village came on the nearby barren land and started digging soil with a JCB and when complainant objected to the said act they started beating and abusing him. It is stated that the complainant in order to save himself ran into his house and were followed by the accused persons where they again assaulted him and his family members as a result of which one Sandeep got a fracture in his right hand and the accused also snatched Rs. 5000/- and gold chain and that when the villagers came after hearing the noise they ran away.

5. The statements of the complainant were recorded under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and the other witnesses were also recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. A perusal of the said statements indicate that the aforesaid witnesses has supported the case of the prosecution and reiterated the allegations as levelled in the said complaint. The trial court duly considered the aforesaid facts and found occurrence of cognizable offence and accordingly had issued summons.

6. The applicants being aggrieved by the order dated 25.03.2023 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Unnao issuing summons to the applicants had preferred a revision in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Unnoa where also their case was duly considered and the revision was rejected by means of order dated 19.02.2025 which has been impugned in the present case.

7. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that initiation of criminal proceedings against the applicants are mala fide and in fact the applicants themselves had lodged a first information report against the complainant for the occurrence of the same day by means of a F.I.R. registered as F.I.R. No. 44/2022 on 01.02.2022 under Sections 324, 504, 523 I.P.C. where the complainant has been shown as one of the accused.

8. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand has opposed the case and submitted that at the stage of issuing the summons the powers of the trial court are limited to examine the disclosure of a cognizable offence in the complaint as well as statement recorded under Section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. There are clear allegations supporting the case of the prosecution under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. pertaining to Section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and accordingly submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the application.

9. Having heard learned counsel for parties. It is notice that the allegations in the complaint pertain to the occurrence on 07.01.2022 where the accused were digging soil through a J.C.B. It is when the complainant had objected to the same he was assaulted. The complainant was followed to his house where the accused have said to have assaulted even the family members where certain injuries have been sustained. Merely because the X-ray report has not been adduced cannot be a reason itself to hold that the entire allegations levelled against the accused are false and mischievous. There has been adequate opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence in support of their case during the course of trial but from the statement of the complainant as well as other witnesses, it is clear that they have disclosed a cognizable offence. At this stage, the inquiry of the Magistrate is limited and the correctness of the allegations are an issue which will be looked into at the appropriate stage during trial.

10. In the case of Saranya v. Bharathi, (2021) 8 SCC 583, the Apex court has reiterated the stance to be taken by the High courts with regard to appreciation of evidence while deciding application under section 482 Cr.P.C.. The Relevant paragraph is as under: "11. In Deepak [State of M.P. v. Deepak, (2019) 13 SCC 62 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 521] , to which one of us (Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) is the author, after considering the other binding decisions of this Court on the point, namely, Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander [Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 687 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986] , State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran Mehdu [State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran Mehdu, (2017) 3 SCC 198 : (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 40 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 545] , and Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] , it is observed and held that at the stage of framing of charges, the Court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is a ground for "presuming" that the accused had committed the offence. It is observed and held that at that stage, the High Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. It is further observed and held that at this stage the High Court is not required to appreciate the evidence on record and consider the allegations on merits and to find out on the basis of the evidence recorded the accused chargesheeted or against whom the charge is framed is likely to be convicted or not."

11. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any merit in the case, accordingly, present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Ravi/ RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Applicant :- Dinesh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Sri Alok Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. In light of proposed order, notices to respondent No. 2 is dispensed with.

3. By means of present application U/S 482 of Cr.P.C. / 528 B.N.S.S. the applicants have assailed the order dated 19.02.2025 passed in Criminal Revision No. 145/2024 (Dinesh and others Vs. Lal Bahadur and another) wherein the revision preferred by the applicant has been rejected and the summoning order dated 25.03.2023 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Unnao has been upheld.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicants that a complaint was lodged by respondent No. 1 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. stating that on 07.01.2022 at 08.30 p.m. a night when he was at his fields then Dinesh, Ashok, Vishal and Suraj of his village came on the nearby barren land and started digging soil with a JCB and when complainant objected to the said act they started beating and abusing him. It is stated that the complainant in order to save himself ran into his house and were followed by the accused persons where they again assaulted him and his family members as a result of which one Sandeep got a fracture in his right hand and the accused also snatched Rs. 5000/- and gold chain and that when the villagers came after hearing the noise they ran away.

5. The statements of the complainant were recorded under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and the other witnesses were also recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. A perusal of the said statements indicate that the aforesaid witnesses has supported the case of the prosecution and reiterated the allegations as levelled in the said complaint. The trial court duly considered the aforesaid facts and found occurrence of cognizable offence and accordingly had issued summons.

6. The applicants being aggrieved by the order dated 25.03.2023 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Unnao issuing summons to the applicants had preferred a revision in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Unnoa where also their case was duly considered and the revision was rejected by means of order dated 19.02.2025 which has been impugned in the present case.

7. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that initiation of criminal proceedings against the applicants are mala fide and in fact the applicants themselves had lodged a first information report against the complainant for the occurrence of the same day by means of a F.I.R. registered as F.I.R. No. 44/2022 on 01.02.2022 under Sections 324, 504, 523 I.P.C. where the complainant has been shown as one of the accused.

8. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand has opposed the case and submitted that at the stage of issuing the summons the powers of the trial court are limited to examine the disclosure of a cognizable offence in the complaint as well as statement recorded under Section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. There are clear allegations supporting the case of the prosecution under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. pertaining to Section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and accordingly submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the application.

9. Having heard learned counsel for parties. It is notice that the allegations in the complaint pertain to the occurrence on 07.01.2022 where the accused were digging soil through a J.C.B. It is when the complainant had objected to the same he was assaulted. The complainant was followed to his house where the accused have said to have assaulted even the family members where certain injuries have been sustained. Merely because the X-ray report has not been adduced cannot be a reason itself to hold that the entire allegations levelled against the accused are false and mischievous. There has been adequate opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence in support of their case during the course of trial but from the statement of the complainant as well as other witnesses, it is clear that they have disclosed a cognizable offence. At this stage, the inquiry of the Magistrate is limited and the correctness of the allegations are an issue which will be looked into at the appropriate stage during trial.

10. In the case of Saranya v. Bharathi, (2021) 8 SCC 583, the Apex court has reiterated the stance to be taken by the High courts with regard to appreciation of evidence while deciding application under section 482 Cr.P.C.. The Relevant paragraph is as under: "11. In Deepak [State of M.P. v. Deepak, (2019) 13 SCC 62 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 521] , to which one of us (Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) is the author, after considering the other binding decisions of this Court on the point, namely, Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander [Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 687 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986] , State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran Mehdu [State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran Mehdu, (2017) 3 SCC 198 : (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 40 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 545] , and Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] , it is observed and held that at the stage of framing of charges, the Court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is a ground for "presuming" that the accused had committed the offence. It is observed and held that at that stage, the High Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. It is further observed and held that at this stage the High Court is not required to appreciate the evidence on record and consider the allegations on merits and to find out on the basis of the evidence recorded the accused chargesheeted or against whom the charge is framed is likely to be convicted or not."

11. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any merit in the case, accordingly, present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Ravi/ RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench