Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25637 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3441 of 2025 Applicant :- Machhalawati And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pintoo Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed in Court is taken on record. 2. Heard leaned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 3. By means of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S. the petitioners have challenged the order dated 13.02.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Barabanki in Criminal Revision No. 43/2023 (Machhalawati and another Vs. State of U.P. and another) as well as summoning order dated 12.05.2022 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial magistrate, Court No.19, Barabanki in Complaint Case No. 705/2019. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that on 2.3.2019 the opposite party no.2 has filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 705/2019. In the said complaint it was alleged that the mother-in-law of the complainant who was involved in roasting the grain. On 28.01.2019 at about 2.30 P.M. the petitioner no.1 came to her to get the work of roasting done which was duly done by the mother-in-law of opposite party no.2 but some how the grains got one and resulting the petitioner no.1 abusing the mother-in- law of opp. party no.2 and when the said act was opposed then the petitioner no.1 called the petitioner no.2 and both of them assault them with 'lathi-danda'. The opposite party no.2 tried to save her mother-in-law and the petitioner was also beaten by her and also got injured. The statement of the complainant was duly recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and by means of the order dated 12.5.2022 summons were issued under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC. 5. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 12.5.2022, preferred a revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Barabanki. Before the said court it was stated that in fact with regard to the same incident a First Information Report has been lodged by the petitioners being FIR No. 35/2019, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)(da), 3(1) (dha), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. 6. It has been submitted that on the side of the petitioners were also injured in the said incident and the version as per the complaint is false and only the counter blast of the FIR. 7. Learned AGA on the other submits that even if the arguments of the petitioners are worthy of consideration then it is bone of that for the same incident an FIR has been registered and on the other hand complaint was made by the opposite party no.2 before the trial court. 8. He has further submitted that in proceedings under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the statements of the complainant under Sections 200, 202 Cr.P.C. were duly recorded from which clearly a cognizable offence is made out and accordingly the summons were issued to the petitioners. 9. Accordingly he submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 13.2.2025. The matter pertains to an incident which has occurred on 28.01.2019 whether file has been rejected between the parties for roasting the grain. The mother-in-law of the opposite party no.2 has protested the petitioners no. 1 and 2, who are alleged to have assaulted the complainant and mother-in-law. With regard to the same incident an FIR has been duly registered in which the charge sheet has already been filed. 10. It is with regard to the same incident that the complaint was filed by opposite party no.2, in which the summons were issued against the petitioners. The trial court has also considered and rejected the revision. It is noticed that at the stage of issuance summons only material available on record has to be considered. Before the Magistrate the complaint was available as well as the statements of the witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. are on record. 11. At this stage any ground or material of the accused is not liable to be set-aside and at that stage he is not party in the proceedings. Even settled law in this regard is that Magistrate has to be satisfied from the material available on record. Perusal of the aforesaid material on the other hand are sufficient to summon the petitioners and accused and accordingly I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order even a cross version of the same incident the FIR has been registered and there is no infirmity in such an action where two places of the same incident can be taken cognizance. 12. Accordingly I do not find any infirmity in the order impugned, the petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. . (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 2.5.2025 Muk Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench