HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27748 of 2024 Court No. - 80 HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J. 1. Heard Sri Om Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Vikas Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party No.2, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing/setting aside the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.2731/2022 (Priay Dwivedi Vs. Bade Lal Vishwakarma and others) under Sections 354, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Naini, District Prayagraj, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Prayagraj. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant No.1 is an advocate practising in taxation and earns his livelihood by filing income tax returns and doing accounting work for small business entities. Applicant No.2 is a housewife. Applicant No.3, namely Manjari Vishwakarma, is a student of Class 12th and his date of birth is 09.11.2007, while applicant No.4, namely Harsh Vishwakarma, is a student of Class 10th and his date of birth is 21.03.2010. Thus, applicant Nos.3 and 4 were minors on the date of the alleged incident. It is further submitted that opposite party No.2 is a neighbour of the applicants and there is enmity between the parties. According to the applicants, The opposite party No.2 is a quarrel some lady and not having a good reputation in the locality and, with an ulterior motive, has falsely implicated the applicants in the present complaint case as a counterblast to the proceedings initiated against her. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Om Prakash Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vikas Srivastava Bade Lal Vishwakarma And 3 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant No.1 had earlier moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 01.11.2021 before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Allahabad with regard to the incidents dated 26.09.2021 and 27.09.2021. The said application was treated as a complaint case and, after recording the statements of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and of the witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C., opposite party No.2 and her husband were summoned under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. It is next submitted that, in respect of another incident dated 11.10.2022 and 12.10.2022, applicant No.1 also got lodged an FIR being Case Crime No. 579 of 2022, at Police Station Naini, District Prayagraj, against opposite party No.2, her husband Adesh Dwivedi, and two other persons. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against opposite party No.2 and her husband under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 427 and 308 I.P.C. It is therefore, contended that the opposite party No.2 with an ulterior motive and making a counter blasts filed a complaint case against the applicants regarding the incident dated 12.10.2022. In the complaint, opposite party No.2 made general allegations that applicant No.1 used to make obscene gestures towards her and molest her, and that despite making complaints to the police, no action was taken. However, so far as the specific incident dated 12.10.2022 is concerned, there is no categorical allegation in the complaint that any obscene gesture or molestation was made on that date. On the contrary, the specific allegation regarding the incident dated 12.10.2022 is that the applicants assaulted opposite party No.2 and her husband by kicks and fists and also stabbed them with a knife and screwdriver. It is submitted that despite alleging such a serious assault, neither opposite party No.2 nor her husband got themselves medically examined, and no injury report or medical evidence has been brought on record in support of the complaint allegations. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that opposite party No.2 was well acquainted with the entire family of the applicants and was fully aware of the fact that applicant Nos.3 and 4 were minors at the time of incident. However, in the complaint, she deliberately concealed their actual ages and incorrectly described applicant No.3 as aged about 20 A482 No. 27748 of 2024 2 years and applicant No.4 as aged about 18 years. It is further argued that the present complaint pertains to the alleged incident dated 12.10.2022. It is also submitted that after recording the statement of opposite party No.2 under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of the witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate summoned applicant No.1 under Sections 354, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., and applicant Nos.2 to 4 under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. It is contended that no prima facie case for the aforesaid offences, particularly under Section 354 I.P.C., is made out against the applicants and, therefore, the impugned summoning order is liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 opposed the prayer made on behalf of the applicants and submitted that the learned Magistrate has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned summoning order. It is submitted that opposite party No.2 resides in the neighbourhood of the applicants and that the applicants had been continuously harassing her and her family members. It is further submitted that applicant No.1 used to make obscene gestures towards opposite party No.2 and had also molested her. Although complaints were made to the police but no action was taken by the police. It is further submits that on 12.10.2022 at about 4:15 p.m., when opposite party No.2 was at a short distance from her house along with her husband, the applicants, accompanied by 3-4 unknown persons, came there and assaulted them by kicks and fists and also attacked them with a knife and screwdriver. It is submitted that opposite party No.2 examined herself under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and also produced her witnesses, namely, Sudhir Singh and Adesh Dwivedi, whose statements were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate has summoned the applicants. It is also submitted that the present matter is a cross-case and, therefore, no interference is called for at this stage. 7. Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in Criminal Revision No. 234 of 2006 (Durga Prasad & Others Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.) decided on 06.12.2012, and has referred to paragraph 13 thereof, which reads as under: A482 No. 27748 of 2024 3 "13- I have examined and analysed the impugned order taking into consideration the above settled legal position. On a cursory perusal of the complaint it appears that the facts disclosed therein prima facie constitute commission of offence of which learned C.J. M. is competent to take cognizance. On perusal of statements of the complainant and the witnesses, recorded by the C.J.M. under Section 200 Cr.P.C, it appears that there is prima facie evidence against the accused persons/revisionists, who according to the complainant have committed the offence. Thus, there is a sufficient ground for issuing process against the accused persons/revisionists under Section 204 Cr.P.C. At the stage of Section 203/204 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate has to see that a prima facie case is made out and there is a prima facie evidence against the person, who according to the complainant has committed the offence. The test is- Whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there was sufficient ground for conviction. The apex court in the cases of Chandra Deo Singh, Nirmaljit Singh Hoon, R.G. Ruia and Vadilal Panchal, re-affirmed and upheld in the case of Shievjee Singh (Supra), held that the Magistrate at the stage of Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. must consider whether there is a sufficient ground for proceeding and that whether there was prima facie evidence or not. Thus, the impugned order passed by the learned C.J.M. is absolutely within the four corners of law and finds full support from the case laws cited as above. The arguments made on behalf of the learned counsel for the revisionists that the C.J.M. has failed to apply his mind as he has not considered the delay caused in filing the complaint are out of preview of Chapter XV and Section 204 Cr.P.C., inspire no attraction. The ratio laid down in M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. (Supra) has no application to the facts and circumstances of this case. In M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. complaint was filed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Since Repealed) by a purchaser of Lehar Pepsi product, which was found adulterated. Under the said Act a complaint can only be filed by the Food Inspector, who has taken the sample and the sample was found adulterated." 8. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in Application U/S 482 No.5705 of 2006 (Sanjeev Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and Another), decided on 17.01.2020 and has referred to A482 No. 27748 of 2024 4 paragraph Nos.14, 23 and 26 thereof, which are quoted below "14. The words "all his witnesses" contained in Sub sec (2), proviso to Section 202 Cr.P. C. cannot be read as "all witnesses". It has been held in Satyadeo Pandey and others v. State of U. P. and another, 1987 (1) AWC 572 that words "all his witnesses" connote that all the witnesses of the complainant, associated or connected with his interest and those witnesses who are material and relevant to prove prosecution case, must be examined. The words "all his witnesses" under proviso to Section 202 Cr.P.C. do not refer literally to all prosecution witnesses in number rather all his witnesses (i.e. of complainant) and to whom he considers material to prove his case. 23. In Mohinder Singh vs Gulwant Singh And Others, 1992 (2) SCC 213, Court said that the scope of inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is extremely restricted. It is only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in order to determine whether process should be issued or not under Section 204 Cr.P.C. or whether the complaint should be dismissed by resorting to Section 203 Cr.P.C. on the footing that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding on the basis of the statements of complainant and his witnesses, if any. But the enquiry at this stage does not partake the character of a full dress trial which can only take place after process is issued under Section 204 Cr.P.C. calling upon the proposed accused to answer the accusation made against him for adjudging the guilt or otherwise of the said accused person. Further, the question, whether evidence is adequate for supporting conviction, can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of enquiry contemplated under Section 202 Cr.P.C. To say in other words, during the course of enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., Magistrate has to satisfy himself simply on the evidence adduced by prosecution, whether prima facie case has been made out so as to put the proposed accused on a regular trial. At that stage no detailed enquiry is called for. 26. Similar view has been taken in Vijay Dhanuka Etc vs Najima Mamtaj Etc, 2014 (14) SCC 638 which has been followed in Abhijit Pawar Vs. Hemant Maudhukar Nimbalkar and Another, 2017 (3) SCC 528." A482 No. 27748 of 2024 5 9. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record. 10. From the record, it transpires that opposite party No.2, who resides in the neighbourhood of the applicants, filed the present complaint alleging that the applicants had been continuously harassing her and her family members and that applicant No.1 used to make obscene gestures towards her and molest her. It was further alleged that on 12.10.2022 at about 4:15 p.m., while she was at a short distance from her house along with her husband, the applicants, accompanied by 3-4 unknown persons, assaulted them by kicks and fists and also attacked them with a knife and screwdriver, thereby causing injuries. Thereafter, opposite party No.2 examined herself under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and also produced witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C., thereafter the learned Magistrate passed the impugned summoning order summoning applicant No.1 under Sections 354, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., and applicant Nos.2 to 4 under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. However, upon perusal of the complaint and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., it appears that so far as the specific incident dated 12.10.2022 is concerned, there is no clear and specific allegation disclosing the commission of an offence under Section 354 I.P.C. against applicant No.1. Although a general allegation has been made that applicant No.1 used to make obscene gestures and molest opposite party No.2, no specific date, time, month or year in relation to such alleged acts has been disclosed either in the complaint or in the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. 11. On the other hand, the specific allegations regarding the incident dated 12.10.2022 are confined to assault by kicks, fists, knife and screwdriver. Even in relation to the said allegations of assault, no medical report or injury report of opposite party No.2 or her husband has been filed in support thereof. It is also noteworthy that applicant Nos.3 and 4 were admittedly minors on the date of the incident, their dates of birth are 09.11.2007 and 21.03.2010 respectively, whereas in the complaint they have been described as 20 years and 18 years respectively. 12. The facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for opposite party No.2. A482 No. 27748 of 2024 6 In the present case, the allegations levelled in the complaint do not find due corroboration from the statement of opposite party No.2 recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Further, no medical or injury report has been filed in support of the alleged injuries said to have been sustained by opposite party No.2 and her husband. 13. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the material brought on record does not constitute sufficient ground for proceeding against the applicants and the impugned summoning order, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Accordingly, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned summoning order dated 24.7.2024 is hereby set aside. 14. Consequently, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case are also hereby quashed. 15. The present application is accordingly, allowed. March 19, 2026 Md Faisal A482 No. 27748 of 2024 7 (Chawan Prakash,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD FAISAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad