Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:88539 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37179 of 2024 Applicant :- Ejaj Ahamad Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 9 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Fakhruzzaman Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Fakhruzzaman, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State-opposite party and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing of summoning order dated 03.04.2024 as well as entire proceedings of complaint Case No. 917 of 2023 (Ejaj Ahamad vs. Smt. Rukhsar and others), arising out of Case No. 917 of 2023, under Section 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Konch, District Jalaun, Pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D)/Judicial Magistrate, Konch, Jalaun. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had married his two sons namely Aashiq and Munna with opposite party no. 2 and opposite party no. 3, daughters of opposite party no. 4 on 26.11.2014. From the wedlock of first son Aashiq one girl was born and from the wedlock of second son Munna two male child were born. He further submits that younger son of applicant namely Munna died on 16.06.2021 due to electrocution. Both the daughters of opposite party no. 4 were very badly treated, so they were left with no other choice but to leave their matrimonial house alongwith their children. Thereafter, Panchayat took place, in which it was decided that applicant will pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 9 lakh to both the daughters for their life time maintenance allowance and take their grand sons and daughter. It is averred that the opposite parties had forcefully took cheque from the applicant and beaten him up. The cheque was also encashed by opposite parties, but grand sons and daughter were not handed over to the applicant. Aggrieved with the same applicant filed a complaint against opposite party nos. 2 to 10 on 23.06.2023 under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Further submission is that learned Magistrate proceeded with the complaint and after taking evidence under sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. has passed the impugned order and summoned only opposite party no. 4 Asagar to face trial under section 504, 506 I.P.C. 4. His further submission is that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is a sheer abuse of the process of the law, as the same has been passed without considering the fact that all the opposite party nos. 2 to 10 were involved in the commission of offence mentioned in the complaint dated 23.06.2023, but learned Magistrate instead of summoning all the accused persons i.e. opposite party nos. 2 to 10, had only summoned opposite party no. 4 Asagar, therefore, the summoning order needs to be quashed and a direction to the trial court be issued to summon all the accused persons i.e. opposite party nos. 2 to 10. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the application and contended that after adducing evidence under sections 200 and 202, learned Magistrate has rightly summoned the applicant and no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order as well as in the on going proceedings. 6. Considering the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case, it is evident that learned Magistrate after adducing the evidence under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. has issued summoning order dated 03.04.2024 against the main accused. 7. The argument raised by the applicant are all disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court. 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and in the cases of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, and lastly, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 has held that only those cases in which no prima facie case is made out can be considered in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 9. The instant application does not fall under the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgements mentioned above, and followed in a number of matters. Moreover, the facts as alleged cannot be said that, prima facie, no offence is made out against the applicants. It is only after the evidence and trial, it can be seen as to whether the offence, as alleged, has been committed or not. 10. However it is open for the applicant to take recourse by way of filing revision. 11. Hence, the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 23.5.2025 Bhanu Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad