Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:110916 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (Sl. No. 24) Court No. - 78 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42177 of 2024 Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Aditya Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Akash Mishra,G.A. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Heard Sri R.C. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Akash Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri S.K. Ojha, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Special Case/Complaint Case No. 1205 of 2023 (Vipin Kumar Mishra vs. Rejeev Kumar) under Section 323, 392 IPC, Police Station-Civil Lines, District-Etawah as well as the summoning order dated 7.9.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that with regard to incident of same date and time, an FIR was lodged by the applicant against the opposite party no. 2. As a counterblast to the same, the instant complaint case has been lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant and two other unknown persons by way of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was subsequently, treated as a complaint case wherein the applicant has been summoned vide impugned order dated 7.9.2024 for the offence under Section 323, 392 IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the opposite party no. 2 is an associate of his wife with whom the applicant is having the matrimonial dispute. In connection therewith the instant complaint has been filed by the opposite party no. 2, hence, learned counsel for the applicant seeks quashing of the entire proceedings of the complaint case. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that with regard to same incident dated 14.8.2023 both the parties have filed complaint to the police initially and both the parties were medically examined as both have sustained injuries. Therefore, who was the aggressor that cannot be decided in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and that can be established only during the trial of the case. 6. Learned A.G.A. also supports the submissions made by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully perused the records of the case. 8. From the record of the case, it is apparent that for the same incident an FIR was lodged by the applicant on 15.8.2023 against the opposite party no. 2 for the offence under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC. For the same incident, a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no. 2. Both the parties have admitted the incident dated 14.8.2023 but they have their own version regarding the incident. From the record, it is also apparent that medical examination of the applicant as well as the opposite party no. 2 was got conducted by the police. Therefore, it is clear that opposite party no. 2 had also informed the police about the incident on the date of incident itself; however the police instead of registering the FIR on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 got registered the case only on behalf of the applicant. 9. In view of the aforesaid fact that both the parties have admitted the incident dated 14.8.2023 but they have their own version, the only thing that is to be determined is who was the aggressor in the incident dated 14.8.2023 and the same cannot be established in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for which a detailed trial is required. In view thereof, this Court do not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned order. 10. Accordingly, the instant application stands dismissed. Order Date :- 11.7.2025 Kirti (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) Digitally signed by :- SMT KIRTI MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad