HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 3915 of 2025 Court No. - 81 HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J. 1. Heard Sri Jai Prakash Prasad, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Suneel Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed for quashing/setting aside the impugned summoning order dated 27.9.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court Room No.1, Rampur as well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.294 of 2024 (Smt. Kamlesh Vs. Mordhaj and others) under Sections 354, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Shahbad, District-Rampur, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court Room No.1, Rampur. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that father of applicant No.1 lodged a First Information Report on 20.111.2022 against five persons including the opposite party No.2 under Section 306 I.P.C. as Case Crime No.281 of 2023 in respect of occurrence of offence took place on 16.11.2023. The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation filed charge sheet against three persons including opposite party No.2. It is further submitted that the marriage of opposite party No.2 was solemnized with the Nekpal who was brother of applicant No.1. It is alleged that the brother of applicant No.1 Nekpal committed suicide due to harrassement of opposite party No.2 and her family members. It is next submitted that the present complaint has been filed by opposite party No.2 as a counterblast and with an ulterior motive to pressurize the applicants, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jai Prakash Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Suneel Kumar Mishra Mordhaj And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) opposite party No. 2 filed a false and baseless complaint case against the applicant No.1 (Devar) and applicant No.2 (Nandoai), Smt. Rajesh (mother-in-law) and Sunita (Nanand) under Sections 376, 511, 406, 420, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. with respect to an alleged incident dated 14.05.2024, whereas no such incident ever took place. It is further submitted that the complainant was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and his witnesses, namely, Ramautar and Rai Singh, were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate summoned the applicant No.1 (Devar) and applicant No.2 (Nandoai) under Sections 354, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. It is contended that prima facie no offence is made out against the applicants. The learned Magistrate failed to properly appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and has committed illegality in passing the impugned summoning order without due application of judicial mind. Hence, the impugned order suffers from manifest illegality and is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicants. It is contended that opposite party No.2 filed a complaint against the applicants and two other persons in respect of the incident dated 14.05.2024, wherein it has been alleged that about 20 days prior to the said incident, the applicants had attempted to rape her. It has further been alleged that on 14.05.2025, a Panchayat was held, wherein the applicants, along with her mother-in-law (Smt. Rajesh) and sister-in-law (Sunita) assaulted opposite party No.2 and threatened to kill her if she demanded return of her stridhan or dowry articles. It is further submitted that the complainant has narrated the entire facts in the complaint and has supported the same in his statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and her witnesses have also supported the prosecution version in their statements recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. On the basis of the complaint and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., as well as the material available on record, the learned Magistrate has rightly summoned the applicants. Therefore, the present application is liable to be dismissed. 5. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the allegation against the applicants is that about 20 days prior to the incident dated 14.05.2024, they had attempted to rape opposite party No.2. It is further alleged that NA528 No. 3915 of 2025 2 on 14.05.2025, a Panchayat was held, wherein the applicants, along with her mother-in-law (Smt. Rajesh) and sister-in-law (Sunita), assaulted opposite party No.2 and threatened to kill her if she demanded return of her stridhan or dowry articles.. The complainant was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and the witnesses, namely, Ramautar and Rai Singh, were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate formed an opinion that a prime facie offence is made out against the applicants and summoned the applicants under Sections 354, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. 6. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused. 8. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. March 24, 2026 Md Faisal NA528 No. 3915 of 2025 3 (Chawan Prakash,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD FAISAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad