Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:27102 Court No. - 27 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4660 of 2016 Applicant :- Raj Narain And Ors. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Bhaiya Lal Yadav,Manoj Kumar Jaiswal Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the entire record. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the impugned order dated 29.06.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Hardoi in Crl. Revision No.184 of 2015 and summoning order dated 11.11.2013 in Complaint Case No.1013 of 2013, under Sections 452, 323, 427 I.P.C., Police Station Kasimpur, District Hardoi passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Hardoi. Foremost contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the impugned summoning order dated 11.11.2013 is not in conformity with the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. His further submission is that the learned trial Court while passing the impugned summoning order has failed to appreciate the fact that the complainant's version of the incident, as stated in the complaint, is not substantiated by the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Thus, he has contended that even prima facie no offence is disclosed against the applicants, despite this fact, he has been summoned to face the trial which is nothing but malicious prosecution and an abuse of the process of the Court. Per contra, learned A.G.A. controverts the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants on the ground that this is not a stage where minute and meticulous exercise with regard to the appreciation of evidence may be done and truthfulness of the allegations could only be tested in a criminal trial. At this initial stage, the fact of innocence of the applicants can also not be determined. Learned A.G.A. further submits that the sufficiency of the material and the test to be applied at the stage of issue of process has been considered in the case of Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another reported in (2012) 11 SCC 465, wherein it has been reiterated that the test to be applied at the stage was whether the material placed before the Magistrate was "sufficient for proceeding against the accused" and not "sufficient to prove and establish the guilt". On the basis of the aforesaid, he submits that no interference with the impugned summoning order and proceedings is warranted at this stage and, therefore, the application is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. Having heard learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of the records, it transpires that the allegations in the complaint have been found to be duly corroborated by the statement made on oath by the complainant during the course of examination under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and also the statements of witnesses recorded during inquiry made by the learned Magistrate under Section 202 Cr.P.C.. The impugned order has been passed referring the aforesaid statements recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and only thereafter, impugned summoning order has been passed. Therefore, at this initial stage, no ground for quashing the impugned summoning order and the proceedings of aforesaid case is made out. The applicants will have an opportunity at the appropriate stage to move an application for discharge taking therein all the pleas factual and legal which may be available to them, in accordance with law. Accordingly, prayer of quashing the impugned order dated 29.06.2016 as well as summoning order dated 11.11.2013 and proceedings emanating therefrom is hereby refused. However, it is provided that if the applicants apply for grant of bail within eight weeks from today, the trial court shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antill Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : MANU/SC/1024/2021. In view of the aforesaid observations, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of. Order Date :- 8.5.2025 Mahesh Digitally signed by :- MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench