Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:27886 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3821 of 2025 Applicant :- Indra Bhushan Mishra And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Praveen Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. Sri Shankar Lal Pandey, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2, same is taken on record. 2. By means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have prayed for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 12295 of 2022 - Ramanuj Mishra Vs. Indra Bhushan Mishra and Others, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 286, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station - Aaspur Deosara, District - Pratapgarh pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)/FTC IInd, Pratapgarh. Further prayer has been made to quash the summoning order dated 30.08.2023, passed in the aforesaid case as well as for quashing the order dated 17.04.2025, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Pratapgarh, in Criminal Revision No. 164 of 2024, whereby the revision preferred by the applicants against order dated 30.08.2023, has been rejected. 3. Brief facts as stated by the applicants are that there exists long standing political rivalry and land related dispute between the applicants and opposite party no. 2 and in this regard a complaint was filed by opposite party no. 2 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 286, 504, 506 IPC. The trial Court after recording statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. has passed the impugned order dated 30.08.2023. While passing the said order, the trial Court has considered the fact that on 11.12.2021, at 5.45PM, in relation to election dispute and also pertaining to dispute regarding land situated at Gata No. 197 and 188, the applicants who were four in number are alleged to have abused and assaulted the complainant alongwith ten other unidentified persons and had also fired upon the complainant with intention to kill. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Court finds commission of cognizable offence and issued summons to the applicants. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that only four persons have been identified while remaining ten remain unidentified and hence ingredients of Section 149 IPC would not be fulfilled where there should be minimum five identified persons. Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the judgments of Manjit Singh Vs. Stte of Punjab, (2019) 8 SCC 529; Mohammad Wajid and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624; PEPSI Foods Ltd. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 and Dilawar Singh Vs. State of Delhi, (2007) 12 SCC 641. In all the cases it is noticed that requirement of Section 149 IPC is that more than five persons should be alleged to have committed the offence. This Court do not find any merit in the submission made on behalf of the applicants that five identified persons are required for an offence to be made out under Section 149 IPC as in the statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C. there were more than four identified persons and ten unidentified persons, total 14 persons are alleged to have committed the offense, and hence ingredients of Section 149 IPC are met where there are more than five persons. The argument that five identified shall be alleged to have committed the offence is grossly misconceived and contrary to the statute. 5. This Court on the basis of allegations made in the complaints as well as statements under Section 202 Cr.P.C., finds that there is no infirmity in the impugned orders. The present application being devoid of merits is rejected. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench