HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5015 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opp. party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 08.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 16, Allahabad in Complaint Case No. 195 of 2021, Moti Lal Vs. Hira Lal and others, by which the discharge application of the revisionist has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that in the present case an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved before the learned A.C.J.M., Allahabad however, the said application was treated as complaint. The statements of complaint namely, Moti Lal, P.W.-1 Malti and P.W.-2 Ganga Prasad were recorded at the pre- summoning stage. Thereafter, accused Hira Lal moved this revision. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the averments made in the complaint and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. of the complainant, as well as the witnesses are different and contradictory in each other. They all have stated a different story. The complainant has stated that, he was also assaulted, abused and beaten up during the said incident, whereas p.w.-1 stated that she was abused but did utter any word to her husband, as he was also manhandled. P.W.-2 stated that the accused have misbehaved with his mother. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Dhiraj Singh, Mina Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Navaneet Kumar Shukla Hira Lal .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 5. On the other hand, leaned counsel for opp. party no. 2 submitted that the averments made in the complaint have been fully supported by the complainant and other witnesses and based on the testimony of all these three persons, the accused person was summoned. 6. Having considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it has come on record that averments made in the complaint, the statements of the complainant and other two witnesses are different in nature and every witness has given the statement disclosing his/ her own version, which makes the incident suspicious, as if no such incident took place. Moreover, all the three witnesses are members of the same family and therefore, making contradictory statements at the pre- summoning stage, is not sufficient to summon the accused person, the revisionist herein. 7. Under the circumstances of the case, the order dated 08.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 16, Allahabad in Complaint Case No. 195 of 2021, Moti Lal Vs. Hira Lal and others, is hereby quashed. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned is directed to pass an order afresh. 8. The revision is accordingly, allowed. September 25, 2025 Gss CRLR No. 5015 of 2024 2 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad