Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:68467 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36669 of 2024 Applicant :- Ganga Singh And 8 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pushpendra Kumar,Ramdhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anil Kumar Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Pushpendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S.D. Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. no.1, Sri Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for O.P. no.2 and perused the record. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicants is taken on record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash summoning order dated 16.05.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case no.125 of 2019 (Rajveer Singh vs. Indrapal Singh and others) u/s 323, 324, 504, 506, 325 IPC, P.S. Hasayan, District-Hathras pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court no.1, Hathras. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that father of applicant no.4 lodged N.C.R. against O.P. no.2 and other, which was converted into FIR on 16.03.2019 wherein after investigation, chargesheet was filed and cognizance was taken on 04.03.2020. He submitted that after lapse of 25 days, O.P. no.2 filed an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was treated as complaint case. After lapse of five years of lodging of complaint, summoning order was passed on 16.05.2024, which has been assailed in this application. He submitted that the court below has wrongly treated the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint case without applying his judicial mind. He further submitted that the court below has committed error in passing the impugned summoning order as the same has been passed in most arbitrary manner, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside. He further added that the instant proceedings against the applicants is nothing else but a counter blast to the earlier proceedings initiated by them against O.P. no.2, which is pure abuse of process of law. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as O.P. no.2 contended that the Court below has rightly summoned the applicants and no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order as well as the on going proceedings. Learned counsel for O.P. no.2 submitted that for the same incident, FIR of father of applicant no.4 was registered whereas FIR of O.P. no.2 was not being registered, so he had no option but to move an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was treated as complaint case and summoning order has been passed therein, which suffers from no illegality. He further submitted that the proceedings initiated by O.P. no.2 is not a counter blast rather it is a cross case. He submitted that O.P. no.2 has sustained grievous injuries in the alleged incident. 5. Heard submissions advanced on behalf of both the parties and perused the record. On perusal of record, it is evident that it is not a case of counter blast but a cross case where FIR of one of the party (i.e. applicant side) was lodged and FIR of other side (O.P. no.2) was not lodged inspite of the fact that O.P. no.2 had sustained grievous injuries. I do not find any infirmity, impropriety or illegality in the impugned summoning order, which does not warrant any interference by this Court. The application seems to be devoid of merits. 6. The instant application is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 1.5.2025 Manish Himwan Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad