Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17175 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2401 of 2025 Applicant :- Dudhnath And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Tiwari,Vaibhav Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. By means of the present 482 Cr.P.C. petition the petitioners have assailed the summoning order dated 7.10.2024. A perusal of the order would indicate that on the application moved by opposite party No.2 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. the trial court had proceeded and recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. according to which it was stated that there is a pre-existing dispute between the applicants and opposite party No.2 in relation to a house and at 5.00 A.M. on 13.11.2016 all the accused persons along with some other unidentified persons had forcefully entered into her house and broke the lock and abused the complainant, her husband and her son Monu. Her son Monu called the police by dialing 100 and the police arrived and took the complainant, her husband and son to the police station who were released on the next day after filing personal bonds. It has been stated that on the date of the incident the applicants have taken away the goods worth Rs.6 to 7 lakhs and also threatened the complainant with dire consequences and accordingly prayer was made for a direction to the Magistrate to order for lodging first information report. 3. The Magistrate duly considered the statement of the complainant and found that from her statement a cognizable offence is made out and on being satisfied he has summoned the revisionists. 4. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Magistrate at this stage has been given undoubted wide discretion in the matter which is to be judicially exercised by and once the Magistrate has exercised his discretion in a judicious way it is not justified even for the High Court to substitute its own discretion for that of the Magistrate or to indulge itself into the exercise of examining the case on merits. In this regard following observations have been made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and others, reported in (1976) 3 Supreme Court Cases 736 which is as under:- "The Magistrate has been given an undoubted discretion in the matter and the discretion has to be judicially exercised by him. Once the Magistrate has exercise his discretion it is not for the High Court, or even this Court, to substitute its own discretion for. that of the Magistrate or to examine the case on merits with view to find out whether or not the allegations in the complaint, if proved, would ultimately end in conviction of the accused. These considerations, in our opinion, are totally foreign to the scope and ambit of an inquiry under s. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which culminates into an order under s. 204 of the Code." 5. There were sufficient material available on record to pass the impugned order. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionists, on the other hand, as submitted that there is pre - existing civil litigation between the parties and the complainant had also registered an NCR which were brought on record by the report of the police. It is made clear that at this stage, the defence of the revisionist is not liable to the considered by the trial court and accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order and find that cognizable offence is made out. Accordingly, summons have been issued. 7. In light of the above, no interference is required in the revision which being devoid of merits is dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 26.3.2025 RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench