Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20110 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 992 of 2017 Applicant :- Lakhpati Singh And Anr. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Lakhpati Singh Inperson,Shyam Sundar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Brijesh Kumar Srivastava,M.V.S. Chauhan,Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Lakhpati Singh, petitioner no.1, who has appeared in person. He has sought permission to appear on behalf of appellant no.2 in terms of Section 32 in the Advocates Act, 1961. 2. Permission is granted, 3. The petitioner in person has been heard in support of the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.. The petitioners have assailed the validity of the order dated 05.07.2013 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.11 (Evening Court, Raebareli) wherein he has issued summons to the petitioners on a complaint made by opposite party no.2 under Section 452, 323 and 504 IPC. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. was filed with opposite party no.2 on 23.05.2011 in the court of ACJM-I, which was registered as Case No.486 of 2013 alleging that on 12.05.2011 a tree, which was growing in the premises owned by the petitioners, had fallen on the house of the complainant due to which the said house has got damaged. When the complainant woke up at 6 O'clock, he requested the petitioners to remove the said tree. On which it is alleged that the petitioner got angry and started abusing the complainant and also along with other accused after being fully armed entered into the house of the complainant and assaulted the member of the family and damaged all the household goods. In support of the complaint, the complainant had submitted her statement under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. and the evidence of Kalika Prasad and Shubhanath was tendered as under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. in support of the allegations. The trial court after considering the material on record which was the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as the statements under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. has summoned the petitioners considering that the prima facie case has been made out under Sections 452, 323 and 504 IPC. The petitioner has submitted that entire facts are false and misconceived and has denied the occurrence of the said incident. He submits that the summoning the petitioners in such a false case would be an abuse of process of law and has accordingly assailed the summoning order dated 05.7.2013. He has submitted that even the witnesses, who have deposed under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. were not present at the time of the incident and live about 150 metres away and accordingly, could not have been witnesses to the said incident. He has further submitted that no injury report has been filed by the complainant and accordingly it is only because the allegations are false, no injury report was filed. He has further submitted that there are several litigations pending between the petitioners and the opposite party no.2, the details of which have been given in the writ petition and hence submitted that the initiation of proceedings by the complainant in the present case is malafide and accordingly, the proceedings deserves to be set aside. 4. The petition has been opposed by the respondents. It has been submitted that at the stage of issuance of summons, the trial court can only look into the material on record which has been brought fourth in the complaint as well as the statement under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. The version of the accused is not liable to be recorded nor is the any provision for considering the statement of the accused in the present case. He submits that the aspect that there are several litigations pending between the parties would be of no consequence inasmuch as the complaint as well as the material on record clearly disclose the cognizable offence against the petitioners and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. I have heard rival contentions of the parties and perused the record. 6. It is noticed that as per the complaint, it is stated that on 12.05.2011 a tree belonging to the petitioners has fallen on the house of the complainant due to which the house was damaged and subsequently when the family of the complainant was to ask to remove the said tree, they took offence to the said fact and attacked the family members of the complainant duly armed with lathi danda etc. It is in the said incident that the household goods of the complainant was destroyed. In support of the complaint, witnesses have deposed and their statements are recorded under Sections 200 and 2002 of the Cr.P.C. The trial court has duly considered the aforesaid facts in a detailed order and thereafter has issued summons. 7. From the aforesaid facts at the stage of issuing summons undoubtedly, a prima facie existence of a cognizance offence was made out and accordingly, I do not find any infirmity with the summoning order. With regard to the falsity or the otherwise of the statement, the petitioner would have adequate opportunity to rebut the same during the trial proceedings at the appropriate stage. The pendency of litigations between the petitioners and respondents is also an issue which can be considered by the trial court at the appropriate stage but would be of no consequence at the stage of summoning. 8. In light of the above, I do not find any valid ground for assailing the summoning order dated 05.07.2013. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed. 9. Interim order, if any, is discharged. 10. However, it is provided that in case, the petitioners move discharge application, through counsel, within four weeks from today, same shall be considered and decided expeditiously after hearing the parties, in accordance with law by means of a reasoned and speaking order. 11. Till the aforesaid period of four weeks, and during pendency of the discharge application, no coercive steps would be taken against the petitioners in the aforesaid case. In case of failure on the part of the petitioners in moving discharge application within the aforesaid period, they will not be entitled to the benefits of this order. [Alok Mathur,J.] Order Date :- 9.4.2025 KR Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench