Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:104295 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5551 of 2019 Applicant :- Shahenoor And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anwar Hussain Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anees Baig,Arvind Agrawal,G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Anwar Hussain, learned counsel for the applicants who are six in number, Sri Anees Baig, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State. 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the impugned summoning order dated 12.10.2018 and entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.563 of 2016 (Imran Vs. Sahenoor and others), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Firozabad. 3. This Court while entertaining the present application on 15.02.2019 proceeded to pass the following orders: "Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party no.1 and perused the record with the assistance of leaned counsel for the parties. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 12.10.2018 and proceedings of Complaint Case no.563 of 2016 (Imran vs. Sahenoor and others), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C, Police Station Ramgarh, District - Firozabad, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IInd, Firozabad. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that:- (i) Earlier on 11.01.2016, brother of opposite party no.2 lodged FIR dated 11.01.2016 against the applicants registered as Case Crime No.22 of 2016, under sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 I.P.C. in respect of alleged incident dated 10.01.2016, copy of FIR dated 11.01.2016 is appended as Annexure 9 to the application. (ii) Pursuant to said FIR dated 11.01.2016, the investigating officer conducted the investigation and all the allegations against the applicants have been found false. The investigating officer in the said case did not submit the chargesheet against the applicants but found that the informant/brother of opposite party no.2 alongwith opposite party No.2 and his other associates were involved in the matter and falsely implicated the applicants making false allegations. Accordingly, the investigating officer has submitted chargesheet dated 19.02.2016 against the opposite party no.2, his father and brother, copy of chargesheet appended as Annexure No.10 to the application. (iii) The opposite party no.2 and his associates did not file any protest/objection against the chargesheet dated 19.02.2016 filed against them. On the said chargesheet the magistrate took cognizance on 15.03.2016. (iv) It is further submitted that when on the FIR lodged by the brother of the opposite party no.2, no chargesheet has been submitted against the applicants, then the opposite party no.2 in order to settle his personal score, filed a criminal complaint dated 04.03.2016 on the same facts, which have been found false by the investigating officer in Case Crime No.22 of 2016. (v) Under the aforesaid facts, initiation of criminal proceeding by means of impugned criminal proceeding dated 04.03.2016 against the applicants is misuse of the process of the Court. (vi) Lastly, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that learned magistrate after recording the statement of opposite party no.2 under section 200 Cr.P.C. and the witnesses namely Smt.Reshma, Mohsin and Dr.R.B.Lal as C.W.-1 under section 202 Cr.P.C., summoned the applicants by the impugned order dated 12.10.2018. (viii) It is submitted that in case criminal proceeding pursuant to impugned complaint dated 04.03.2016 will be permitted to continue, the same will be contrary to the facts mentioned in the chargesheet dated 19.02.2016 filed against the opposite party no.2 and his associates. (ix) Applicants have been falsely implicated by the informant with mala fide intention only with a view to harass the applicants. (x) No offence is made out against the applicants. (xi) It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that the impugned summoning order has been passed against the applicants by the learned Magistrate in violation of law settled by the Apex Court in case of "Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others reported in 1998 (5) SCC 749, wherein the Apex Court has observed that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused. Therefore, it is a fit case for interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in order to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the end of justice." Therefore, it is a fit case for intereferance by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in order to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the end of justice. (iv) The impugned criminal proceeding against the applicant is abuse of the process of the Court and is liable to be quashed by this Court. Per contra, learned AGA for the State submitted that considering the material evidences and allegations against the applicant on record, as on date, as per prosecution case, the cognizable offence against the applicant is made out, therefore, application is liable to be dismissed. Matter requires consideration. Learned Government Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of the State/opposite party no.1. Let a notice be issued to opposite party no. 2 in accordance with law. All the opposite parties may file counter affidavit within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed by the applicant within two weeks thereafter. List this case after expiry of six weeks before the appropriate Bench. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in Complaint Case no.563 of 2016 (Imran vs. Sahenoor and others), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C, Police Station Ramgarh, District - Firozabad, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IInd, Firozabad." 4. A short counter affidavit has been filed on 28.08.2022, in which necessary averments have been made in paragraph 3 that on 02.06.2022, parties have entered into compromise and joint compromise accompanied with the joint affidavit has been filed before the court below. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 submits that a direction be given to the court below to verify the compromise and until verification is done, no coercive action shall be taken. 6. Learned AGA has no objection to the same. 7. Considering the submissions so made across the bar, present application stands disposed of directing the applicant to submit an attested copy of the present application, counter affidavit, certified copy of this order and other relevant documents before the court below by 25.07.2025 and on the said motion, the court below shall undertake to verify the compromise with most expedition. 8. Till the compromise is verified, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in pursuance to the aforesaid case. 9. The protection so accorded shall only apply in those contingency wherein applicants (parties) sticks to the timeline. Order Date :- 3.7.2025 S.A. Digitally signed by :- SALMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad