Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:106869 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ***** (SL No.1) Court No. - 78 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37166 of 2024 Applicant :- Pandhari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Suneel Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Heard Sri Suneel Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.K. Ojha, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 21.12.2022 passed in Complaint Case No.9165 of 2022 (Shahwan vs. Pandhari) under Sections 325 I.P.C., P.S.- Bahdah, District- Azamgarh. 3. Learned counsel of the applicant submits that there was an enmity between the opposite party no.2 and the applicant herein and the applicant herein was the Pradhan of the village and tried to remove the illegal occupation by the opposite party no.2. Annoyed with the same the instant complaint case has been filed by the opposite party no.2, falsely implicating the applicant herein as well. However, in the incident there is no role of the applicant. Only general and vague allegations have been made in the complaint. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant seeks quashing of the entire proceedings of the instant case. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that in the incident dated 26.05.2017, the son of the opposite party no.2 had sustained grievous injuries and fracture. Therefore, it can't be said that no offence whatsoever has been made out against the applicant herein. The injuries are supported by the medical examination report and also by the witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. In view thereof, prima facie a case has been made out and the trial court having satisfied therewith, has summoned the applicants alongwith other co-accused persons for the offence under Section 325 I.P.C. Therefore, in the light of the judgement of the said State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], no case is made out by the applicant for interfering with the summoning order or for quashing the proceedings of the said complaint case against the applicant herein. Therefore, learned A.G.A. seeks dismissal of the instant application. 5. Having heard the rival submissions made by learned counsels for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. From the record of the case it is apparent that on 13.07.2017 a complaint has been lodged by the opposite party no.2, making an allegation that the applicant was the Pradhan of the village and was trying to occupy the land of the Mosque, which was objected by the opposite party no.2. In connection with the same, on 26.05.2017, the applicant alongwith other co-accused persons have assaulted the son of the opposite party no.2 with lathis etc., in which the son of the opposite party no.2 had sustained injuries and fracture. Medical report is also supporting the injury as alleged in the complaint and the allegations are also supported by the statement of witnesses under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. 6. Therefore, from the entirety of the material available on record this court is of the opinion that a prima facie case is made out in the instant case. Therefore, this Court does not find any good reason to entertain the instant application and the same is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Shubham Arya (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM ARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad