Deepak Chawla And Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another

1. Heard Shri Amit Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and Shri Abhishek Kumar Khare,, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of impugned summoning order dated 11.07.2023 as well as entire proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No. 62 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 395, 307, 504 Indian Penal Code, Police Station - Motiganj, District - Gonda pending before the Court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No.11, Gonda (in short "trial Court").

3. Brief facts of the case are that shops no. 16, 17 and 33 were initially allotted to Gopal Jaiswal, Ravi Jaiswal and Yogesh Jaiswal and they sublet their shops to father of the applicants no. 1 & 2 and the applicant no.3 through notary affidavit and there was agreement between the parties and Rs.7,50,000/- was given as security amount.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that complainant as well as other persons sublet the shops to other persons and later on, an inquiry was set up by District Magistrate, Gonda in April 2017 and allotment of 11 shops were cancelled by the District Magistrate, vide letters dated

08.04.2017. Thereafter, fresh notification was issued for allotment of shops and the applicants were allotted shops by the order of District 2 A482 No. 12729 of 2023 Magistrate.

5. He further submits that complainant filed civil suit before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gonda was filed against the fresh allotment and challenged the order dated 17.05.2017 and another civil suit was also filed by Yogesh Kumar Jaiswal against the applicant no.3 and both the civil suites are pending bearing Case No.92/2017 and Case No.262/2017.

6. He further submits that there was no interim order granted in the civil suits, therefore, the complainant has filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 01.12.2017 in which direction was issued to lodge the FIR and the FIR was registered as Case Crime No.62 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 392, 506 IPC at Police Station - Motiganj, District - Gonda against the applicants. The complainant also got himself examined by private doctor on 24.11.2017. The investigation was done and independent witnesses did not support the prosecution case and finally police filed prepared the final report on 10.04.2018 and filed on 03.03.2021 before the trial Court. The complainant filed protest petition which was treated as complainant, therefore, complaint case was registered and the statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The applicants have been summoned by the trial Court to face trial under Sections 395, 307, 323, 504, 147, 148, 149 IPC.

7. It has been further submitted that the admittedly civil suites are pending between the parties and the final report has been submitted by the police in pursuance of the FIR; thus it is a case where Court may look into that false allegations have been levelled.

8. It has been further submitted that the applicants are economically well- off and whatever incident of loot of Rs.50,000/- has been alleged is false and fabricated.

9. It has been further submitted that offense under Section 307 IPC is not made for the reason that there is no recovery of weapon or cartridge at the place of occurrence.

10. It has been further submitted that just to give serious colour to the case, Section 307 IPC has bee added otherwise no offense is made out. 3 A482 No. 12729 of 2023 The trial Court has not applied its mind that offense under Section 307 IPC is not made out.

11. Learned counsel for the applicant has also pointed out that there is difference in the statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses. One Dinesh Mishra, witness, has stated before the trial Court that Rs.5,900/- was looted whereas the complaint has stated that Rs.50,000/- was looted. Both witnesses Dinesh Mishra and Nanhu Babu have not stated that any chain was snatched by the accused.

12. He lastly submits that entire case is false and fabricated and instituted only to secure personal score. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam, (2019) 16 SCC 739.

13. On the other hand, Shri Abhishek Kumar Khare,, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that a bare perusal of statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. it is evident that offense is made out against the applicants. This Court cannot do a mini-trial, therefore, summons issued by the trial Court is justified and there is no illegality and infirmity in the order.

14. He also submits that the statement of the complaint indicates that he was beaten by the applicants and he was medically examined by the doctor.

15. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379 and this Court passed in Mahboob Khand vs. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 3196and Keshav Ugan Jha Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2024:AHC-LKO:4377.

16. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

17. After going through records, I find that the offense under Section 307 IPC is not made out. The reason is obvious that the complainant has said that the applicant no.1 fired at him which missed but there is no evidence on record which indicates that there is any recovery of weapon or 4 A482 No. 12729 of 2023 cartridge. Learned trial Court has not applied its mind that the offense under Section 307 IPC is not made out. Merely assertion of the complainant that the fire was missed is not sufficient. The trial Court ought to have applied its mind that there is no record which indicates that the offense under Section 307 IPC is made out. However, a bare perusal of the statement of complainant as well as statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C. indicate that the offense under Sections 395, 323, 504, 147, 148, 149 IPC are made out.

18. Keeping in view aforesaid discussion, the application is allowed in- part. The impugned summoning order dated 11.07.2023 is quashed to the extent that the applicants will not be tried for offense under Section 307 IPC, however, the applicants will be tried in the rest offenses i.e. Sections 395, 323, 504, 147, 148, 149 IPC.

19. No order as to costs. November 11, 2025 Mohit Singh/- (Brij Raj Singh,J.) MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Amit Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and Shri Abhishek Kumar Khare,, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of impugned summoning order dated 11.07.2023 as well as entire proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No. 62 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 395, 307, 504 Indian Penal Code, Police Station - Motiganj, District - Gonda pending before the Court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No.11, Gonda (in short "trial Court").

3. Brief facts of the case are that shops no. 16, 17 and 33 were initially allotted to Gopal Jaiswal, Ravi Jaiswal and Yogesh Jaiswal and they sublet their shops to father of the applicants no. 1 & 2 and the applicant no.3 through notary affidavit and there was agreement between the parties and Rs.7,50,000/- was given as security amount.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that complainant as well as other persons sublet the shops to other persons and later on, an inquiry was set up by District Magistrate, Gonda in April 2017 and allotment of 11 shops were cancelled by the District Magistrate, vide letters dated

08.04.2017. Thereafter, fresh notification was issued for allotment of shops and the applicants were allotted shops by the order of District 2 A482 No. 12729 of 2023 Magistrate.

5. He further submits that complainant filed civil suit before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gonda was filed against the fresh allotment and challenged the order dated 17.05.2017 and another civil suit was also filed by Yogesh Kumar Jaiswal against the applicant no.3 and both the civil suites are pending bearing Case No.92/2017 and Case No.262/2017.

6. He further submits that there was no interim order granted in the civil suits, therefore, the complainant has filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 01.12.2017 in which direction was issued to lodge the FIR and the FIR was registered as Case Crime No.62 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 392, 506 IPC at Police Station - Motiganj, District - Gonda against the applicants. The complainant also got himself examined by private doctor on 24.11.2017. The investigation was done and independent witnesses did not support the prosecution case and finally police filed prepared the final report on 10.04.2018 and filed on 03.03.2021 before the trial Court. The complainant filed protest petition which was treated as complainant, therefore, complaint case was registered and the statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The applicants have been summoned by the trial Court to face trial under Sections 395, 307, 323, 504, 147, 148, 149 IPC.

7. It has been further submitted that the admittedly civil suites are pending between the parties and the final report has been submitted by the police in pursuance of the FIR; thus it is a case where Court may look into that false allegations have been levelled.

8. It has been further submitted that the applicants are economically well- off and whatever incident of loot of Rs.50,000/- has been alleged is false and fabricated.

9. It has been further submitted that offense under Section 307 IPC is not made for the reason that there is no recovery of weapon or cartridge at the place of occurrence.

10. It has been further submitted that just to give serious colour to the case, Section 307 IPC has bee added otherwise no offense is made out. 3 A482 No. 12729 of 2023 The trial Court has not applied its mind that offense under Section 307 IPC is not made out.

11. Learned counsel for the applicant has also pointed out that there is difference in the statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses. One Dinesh Mishra, witness, has stated before the trial Court that Rs.5,900/- was looted whereas the complaint has stated that Rs.50,000/- was looted. Both witnesses Dinesh Mishra and Nanhu Babu have not stated that any chain was snatched by the accused.

12. He lastly submits that entire case is false and fabricated and instituted only to secure personal score. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam, (2019) 16 SCC 739.

13. On the other hand, Shri Abhishek Kumar Khare,, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that a bare perusal of statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. it is evident that offense is made out against the applicants. This Court cannot do a mini-trial, therefore, summons issued by the trial Court is justified and there is no illegality and infirmity in the order.

14. He also submits that the statement of the complaint indicates that he was beaten by the applicants and he was medically examined by the doctor.

15. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379 and this Court passed in Mahboob Khand vs. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 3196and Keshav Ugan Jha Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2024:AHC-LKO:4377.

16. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

17. After going through records, I find that the offense under Section 307 IPC is not made out. The reason is obvious that the complainant has said that the applicant no.1 fired at him which missed but there is no evidence on record which indicates that there is any recovery of weapon or 4 A482 No. 12729 of 2023 cartridge. Learned trial Court has not applied its mind that the offense under Section 307 IPC is not made out. Merely assertion of the complainant that the fire was missed is not sufficient. The trial Court ought to have applied its mind that there is no record which indicates that the offense under Section 307 IPC is made out. However, a bare perusal of the statement of complainant as well as statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C. indicate that the offense under Sections 395, 323, 504, 147, 148, 149 IPC are made out.

18. Keeping in view aforesaid discussion, the application is allowed in- part. The impugned summoning order dated 11.07.2023 is quashed to the extent that the applicants will not be tried for offense under Section 307 IPC, however, the applicants will be tried in the rest offenses i.e. Sections 395, 323, 504, 147, 148, 149 IPC.

19. No order as to costs. November 11, 2025 Mohit Singh/- (Brij Raj Singh,J.) MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench