Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37831 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5252 of 2025 Applicant :- Prem Lal And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Aditya Tiwari,Prince Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J. 1. Heard, Shri Aditya Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that respondent no.2 tried to demolish the construction being made by the applicants on 29.06.2023, therefore, the applicant no.1 moved an application for lodging an FIR before the Police Station on 03.07.2023. On which, an FIR was lodged on the same date at Police Station- Unchahar, District- Raibareli under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 and Section 3(1)da), 3(1)(dha) of SC/ ST Act. Thereafter, the applicants filed a complaint case on 20.07.2023, as a counterblast to the FIR lodged by applicant no.1. He further submits that a charge sheet has been filed in the FIR lodged by the applicants against respondent no.2, but the applicants have been summoned in the complaint case without considering it or any other material on record. 3. He further submits that the applicants have placed on record photographs and a Digital Video Disc (DVD) of videography in which, it has been shown that the respondent no.2 is demolishing the construction being made by the applicants. He relied upon a coordinate bench judgment and order dated 18.07.2024 of this Court passed in the case of Haibat Ali Vs. State U.P. and Another. He further submits that since there is no evidence which can prove the allegations made by respondent no.2, therefore the summoning order is liable to be quashed alongwith proceedings of the complaint case. 4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the submission of learned counsel for the applicants. He submits that an investigation has been got conducted by the learned Magistrate, in which statements have also come against the applicants, therefore, the impugned order has rightly been passed in accordance with law. 5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the material placed on record. 6. Admittedly, on account of certain constructions by the applicants some altercation was their on 29.06.2023 between 7- 8 in the morning, in regard to which, it has been stated by the applicants that the respondent no.2 and his men had tried to demolish the constructions made by the applicants. The applicant no.1 submitted an application for lodging an FIR on 03.07.2023 i.e. after four days of the incident. On which an FIR was lodged as disclosed above. The respondent no.2, disclosing in the complaint that despite repeated efforts, the FIR was not lodged, he had sent the application to the Superintendent of Police, Raibareli on 10.07.2023, but FIR was not lodged, therefore the complaint filed. 7. It appears that on account of the aforesaid altercation, proceedings under Section 107 and 116 Cr.P.C. were undertaken against the applicants also, as disclosed in the complaint. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that after recording the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate called a report from the Police under Section 202 (1). The report has been submitted with statements of certain witnesses, out of which some have given statement in favour of the applicants, while PW-1 and PW-2 have given statement against the applicants, which are in consonance with the statement recorded under Section 200 of the complaint, which has not been disputed. It is also mentioned in the impugned order that respondent no.2 has stated in his complaint that he had got his treatment done in the Jamuna Par Hospital and the papers of the same would be produced. 8. In view of above, the learned Magistrate has got the investigation conducted by the Police in the complaint, in which allegations have been found against the applicants also, therefore, it cannot be said that there is no evidence against the applicants on account of which the complaint cannot continue. Thus, the applicants are not entitled for any benefit of the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants. As per the report of the police, the statements are in favour of both parties, therefore both the prosecution lodged by the applicant as well as the complaint lodged by respondent no.2 may be tried together, for which the applicants may move appropriate application before the concerned court, which may be considered by the concerned court. 9. This petition has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds. It is, accordingly, dismissed. ...................................................................(Rajnish Kumar, J.) Order Date :- 4.7.2025 / Haseen U. Digitally signed by :- HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench