HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7005 of 2022 Court No. - 16 HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. 1. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed rejoinder affidavit, which is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as also the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The applicant has filed the present application with the following main prayer :- "The petitioner named above most respectfully begs to submit that for the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned summoning order dated 16.09.2022 passed in Revision No. 129/2022, passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Gonda, in Misc. Suit 3387/2020, under section 323, 504, 506, 392 I.P.C. as well as order dated 11.03.2022, passed in Misc. Suit No. 3387/2020, 'Arvind @ Rahul Tewari Vs Parmendra and others', passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.2 /Judicial Magistrate, Gonda." 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant had lodged F.I.R. against the opposite party No. 2 and other co- Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajeev Kumar Mishra Rudra, Vayu Nandan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Govind Kumar Chourasia Pateshwari .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another .....Opposite Party(s) accused on 17.09.2022 at Case Crime No. 0279/2020 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 427, 452, 506, I.P.C., P.S. Dhanepur, District Gonda. In the said F.I.R. chargesheet has been filed against the opposite party No. 2 and other co-accused. It is further submitted that in the said case there were three injured persons, namely, Pateshwari Prasad Mishra, Ajai Kumar Mishra and Sunil Kumar Mishra, and their injury-reports have been brought on record at Annexure-6 to the application. It is further submitted that to settle personal score and out of vengeance the opposite party No. 2 has filed the complaint in question on 13.10.2020, i.e., just after 27 days, making false allegation of theft of Bolero car and allegation is levelled that the applicant intimidated the complainant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that Annexure-7, the case-diary entry in the said case indicates that the said Bolero car was recorded in the general diary that it was lawaris (unclaimed) and the complainant came alongwith the paper and claimed the said car which was released. He has submitted that entire allegation levelled in the complaint as well as in the statements recorded Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C indicates that it is a false allegation and the applicant has been implicated only to settle personal score by the opposite party No. 2against whom F.I.R. was lodged by the applicant. Counsel for the applicant has also submitted that statement of Phool Murari under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was recorded, but he is also accused in the F.I.R. lodged by the applicant, therefore, the statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is also not liable to be believed in the present case. In support of his contention, the leared counsel has relied judgment of State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors., (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) (para-107, Point No. 7), and has submitted that this complaint is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 submitted that after recording statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the summons have been issued and there is no illegality in the order passed by the court below. He has further submitted that this court cannot do trial and evidences are to be adduced before the trial court and the trial court will look into the factual aspect after adducing evidence on record. A482 No. 7005 of 2022 2 7. After going through the record I find that the applicant had earlier lodged F.I.R. against the opposite party No. 2 on 17.09.2020 in which applicant and two other persons had received injury. Just after 27 days of lodging of the said F.I.R., the opposite party No. 2 has filed the present complaint on 13.10.2020 in which allegation is levelled to the extent that the Bolero car of the opposite party No. 2 was taken forcefully by the applicant and other co-accused, which is is not believable. There is sufficient ground to see that G.D. report also indicates that the said Bolero car was released in favour of opposite party No. 2 by the Police, which was unclaimed and it appears that the same was missing, but no such report was lodged by the opposite party No. 2 to that extent, however, he had made allegation against the applicant just to settle his personal score. The injury report has been brought on record that also indicates that applicant and two other persons had received injury and the opposite party No. 2 is accused and he wants to settle his case, that is why the present complaint has been filed. The statement of witness Surya Murari under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is also not reliable for the reason that he is also accused in the F.I.R. lodged by the applicant. The case of the applicamt is covered by judgment of Bhajan Lal (supra). Applicant is accordingly allowed. 8. Proceedings of the said case and the orders, are hereby quashed, in respect to the applicant herein. December 18, 2025 A.Nigam A482 No. 7005 of 2022 3 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench