Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:83585 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42415 of 2024 Applicant :- Ram Vishal Dwivedi And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dewendra Singh,Prem Shanker Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sandeep Kumar Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri P.S. Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri N.K. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. no.1 and Sri Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for O.P. no.2 and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants praying for quashing summoning order dated 06.09.2022 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint No.1188 of 2021 (Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi vs. Ram Vishal Dwivedi and others), under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Nawabganj, District-Allahabad pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.8, Allahabad. 3. O.P. no.2 has moved an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 21.08.2021, which was later on treated as complaint case. In the said application, it is alleged that six accused persons which includes the present applicants, came to his ghur gaddha (pit) with intention to forcefully capture it, when O.P. no.2 objected them, the accused persons assaulted him with lathi, danda. The accused also pushed the daughter-in-law of O.P. no.2, who came to rescue him. After adducing evidence and conducting a preliminary enquiry in the matter, summoning order has been passed on 06.09.2022, which has been assailed by means of the instant application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that all the applicants are members of the same family and O.P. no.2 is their neighbour, who is having inimical terms with the applicants and hence, he has moved an application u/s 156(3) which has been treated as complaint case and the applicants have been summoned u/s 323, 504, 506 IPC. He next submitted that the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature which has been given criminal colour by O.P. no.2 just to put undue pressure on them. He also added that in the alleged incident no one has sustained injury as such, it is a case of no injury. He submitted that even though the alleged incident has taken place in mid of the village, but no independent witness has been examined, which casts serious doubt upon the veracity of the complaint version. He further submitted that the court below has utterly failed to consider that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants. He also pointed out certain documents in support of his contention. 5. In pursuance of order dated 09.05.2025, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of O.P. no.2, annexing medical examination report of O.P. no.2, which is taken on record. Learned counsel for O.P. No.2 has vehemently opposed the application and placing reliance on medical examination report of O.P. no.2 he submitted that due to assault, O.P. no.2 has sustained head injury with facial injury and multiple injuries. He next submitted that C.T. Scan report further reveals that O.P. no.2 has sustained fracture of both nasal bones and hence, submission of learned counsel for the applicants that it is a case of no injury is totally false. He submitted that the complaint version is fully corroborated by the medical evidence, hence, the instant application lacks merit and liable to be dismissed. 6. At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicants has denied the medical report and submitted that a forged medical report has been got prepared by O.P. no.2 with ill motive. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the application and coincided with the submissions made by learned counsel for O.P. no.2. He further submitted that genuineness of the medical report cannot be decided by this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the same can only be gone through and adjudicated by the trial court after adducing evidence and during trial of the case. At last, he submitted 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. 8. From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the 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. 9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has laid down the guidelines under which circumstances the Court should, in its inherent power, entertain an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The guidelines are as follows:- "(i) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (ii) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (iii) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (iv) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (v) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 10. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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. 11. The instant application does not fall under the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments 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. 12. Hence, the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 19.5.2025 Manish Himwan Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad