1 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17361 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2431 of 2025 Applicant :- Jokhu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Verma,Pali Anurag,Suryansh Narula Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. By means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has challenged the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 625 of 2010 (Ram Pratap Upadhyaya Vs. Jokhu and another) under Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506 IPC pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-17, Sultanpur and also to quash the summoning order dated 07.09.2024 passed by the said court. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that the opposite party no. 2 had instituted a complaint in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-17, Sultanpur against the applicant and other unknown persons. In the complaint dated 16.12.2002, it was alleged that the complainant and the accused persons are the same family and prior to the said incident also, the complainant had been physically assaulted and had received serious injuries and further that a civil dispute pertaining to the property is pending before the court below. It is further stated that on 14.07.2002 at about 6:30 a.m. when the complainant was going to feed the cattle then Jokhu, Ram Khilawan S/o Ram Bharosey Tiwari along with one other person started assaulting the complainant with lathi and danda alleging that the complainant was interfering in supply of the water to the fields. Somehow the complainant ran away to save his life and the accused persons entered into the house and assaulted the other family 2 members of the complainant due to which his son Shatrodhan, complainant's wife Lakhpati also received serious injuries. On hearing the shrieks and connotation, the other villagers gathered, on which the accused persons fled way from the place of occurrence. The complainant had reported the said incident to the police station and he was sent to hospital where he was medically examined. It is further stated that x-ray was advised by the doctor on the body of injured Lakhpati. In the x-ray report, fracture was found on her hand. It was further stated that despite intimation of the said incident to the police, the FIR was not lodged and accordingly, prayer was made for registration of the complainant against the accused persons under Sections 323, 325, 452, 504 and 506 IPC. 4. It is further stated that the trial court had duly recorded the statements of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and other witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. It seems that as per the complaint there was certain unidentified persons accompanying the accused, who were involved in the said incident. Considering the statements of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C., it was reported that there was one unidentified person and consequently, to reveal the identification of the said person in exercise of power under Section 202 (1) Cr.P.C. by means of order dated 08.02.2024, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the Station House Officer concerned to conduct an inquiry and submit the report. The Station House officer submitted its report stating therein that the place of incident now falls under Police Station Peeparpur, District Amethi and consequently, informed his inability to conduct the investigation in this regard. The trial court considering the entire material available on record by means of order dated 07.09.2024 had issued summons to the applicant, which has been assailed in the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It has been vehemently submitted by learned counsel for applicant that firstly; the inquiry in the complaint was conducted in the year 2002 itself when the statement of the witnesses were recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. but the issue of process was postponed and it was thought 3 fit to further have the matter enquired by the police but without waiting for the inquiry report, the trial court has proceeded to issue process by means of the impugned order. It was submitted that in this regard the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary and deserves to be set aside. 5. In support of his submission, learned counsel for applicant has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Jatia Vs. Gian Chand Malick reported in (2024) 4 SCC 289 to state that once when the trial court comes to the opinion that the material available under Section 200 Cr.P.C. is inadequate and proceeds to take recourse to the provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C. then he cannot revert back to the material adduced at the stage of Section 200 Cr.P.C. and consequently submits that entire proceedings against the applicant deserves to be set aside. 6. Learned A.G.A. for the State on the other hand has submitted there is no infirmity in the impugned order, inasmuch as, at the stage of summoning only the material which has come on record is liable to be perused by the learned Magistrate. In the present case there was sufficient material in the form of statements of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and other witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C., who had unanimously supported the prosecution case. The learned trial court after considering the statements of complainant and witnesses had issued the summons against the applicant. It was further stated that the process issued under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was not with regard to the applicant and it was only in relation to the unidentified person, which statement had occurred in the statement of the complainant at the stage of recording the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and consequently, the same could not have any relevance or benefit to the applicant in assailing the impugned order. 7. This Court has heard rival contention of the learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record. 8. The facts of the case are not disputed and inasmuch as, the complainant had filed a complaint before the trial court on 16.12.2002 clearly alleging that the applicants, who are family members of the 4 complainant had abused and assaulted the complainant as well as his wife, son Shatrodhan. The statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C., was recorded on 06.12.2012 where he narrated the entire incident as stated in the complaint and also stated that he had received serious injuries in the said incident. He further stated that even his son Shatrodhan, wife Lakhpati, who tried to save the complainant had also been beaten and she also received serious injuries. It was further stated in the complaint that there was certain unidentified person also accompanying the accused and at the stage of issuing summons, the trial court thought proper to inquire about the identity of the unidentified persons for which orders were passed for investigation under Section 202 (1) Cr.P.C. At this stage, it is noticed that the order dated 08.02.2024 clearly indicate that intention of the Magistrate was only to identify the unidentified person stated in the complaint and not for any issue or fact to be determined with regard to the applicant. Relevant extract of the impugned order is as under:- "परिवादी द्वाा संक्षेप में परिवाद में यह कथन किकया गया है किक किदनांक -14.07.2002 को प्रातः लगभग 06:30 बजे प्राथ* ोजाना की तह चाा देने हेतु अपनी भैंस बांध हा था किक इतने में गांव के जोखू व उनके रिश्तेदा ाम खेलावन तथा ाम खेलावन के साथ आये एक व्यकि9 औ जिजनका नाम पता वह नहीं जानता है तथा देखक चेहे से पहचान सकता है, लाठी-डंडा लिलए हुए उसके दवाजे प आये औ कहे किक वे लोग उसका पानी काट लेते है जिजस प उसने कहा किक वह पानी नहीं काटता है इस प सभी लोग मां-बहन की भद्दी-भद्दी गालिलयां व जान से मा डालने की धमकी देते हुए ललकाक कहे किक उसका किदमाक खाब हो गया है माो साले को। इस प सभी मुल्जिEजमान उपो9 को जान से मा डालने की नीयत से प्राण घातक हमला कते हुए प्राथ* को लाठी-डण्डा से माने लगे। इस प्रका परिवादी ने अपने परिवादपत्र एवं धाा 200 द०प्र०सं० के बयान में एक अज्ञात किवपक्षी के होने का कथन किकया है। ऐसे में धाा -202(1) द०प्र०सं० के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप थाने के भासाधक अधिधकाी द्वाा अन्वेषण रिपोटT प्राप्त किकये जाने के पश्चात् प्रस्तुत प्रकण में आदेश पारित किकया जाना न्यायोधिचत प्रतीत होता है। 5 आदेश थानाध्यक्ष धम्मौ को आदेशिशत किकया जाता है किक वे धाा-202 (1) द०प्र०सं० के तहत प्रस्तुत प्रकण की किवस्तृत अन्वेषण क अपनी आख्या न्यायालय के समक्ष किनयत किदनांक तक प्रस्तुत के। पत्रावली किदनांक 21-02- 24 को पेश हो।" 9. In the present case, facts clearly demonstrate that there is no dispute with regard to the satisfaction to the culpability of the applicant as demonstrated in the statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. by the complainant and other witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. but is only with regard to the unidentified persons named by the complainant, he had issued the order under Section 202 (1) Cr.P.C. Even if such determination of unidentified person remained inconclusive, this Court does not find any reason that the complainant can get benefit of the same, inasmuch as, this Court has already stated above, that the said order was not relation with the applicant but was in relation to the unidentified person. 10. Subsequently even if the said inquiry was not concluded by the concerned Station House Officer stating that the place of incident falls under a different police station would not be of any assistance to the applicant, inasmuch as the order under Section 202 (1) Cr.P.C. did not relate to them. Considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Jatia (supra), it is noticed that it is only when the learned Magistrate is not satisfied with the evidence and statements produced by the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and other witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and if the records his satisfaction in this regard and proceeds under Section 202 (1) Cr.P.C. only in such a situation, he cannot revert back to the statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. 11. In light of the above, this Court finds that while issuing summons by means of order dated 07.09.2024, the court below has duly considered the statements recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C. This Court further finds that as per settled preposition of law at this stage the only material the trial court has to consider the statement 6 and material available on record, it cannot be denied that there was sufficient material to have issue summons to the applicant. 12. In light of the above, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 26.3.2025 Virendra Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench