HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8534 of 2022 Court No. - 16 HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Apoorv Srivastava holding brief of Shri Sunil Mohan, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:- "(a) to quash the impugned false and frivolous complaint no.l 4569/2018, Ram Singh Vs. Mukesh and others, filed by the opposite party no.2 and the illegal as well as perverse summoning order dated 18.6.2018 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Hardoi in the said complaint case thereby arbitrarily and illegally taking cognizance and summoning the petitioners to face the trial, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 392 IPC. (c) to quash the Revisional Judgement and order dated 04.11.2022 passed by the Session Judge, District Hardoi, filed by the revisionist In Re: Criminal Revision No. 70/2021, Mukesh and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 392 IPC, Police Station Bilgram, District Hardoi." 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no.2 had lodged NCR No. 191/2016 on 04.06.2016, under Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pramod Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Alok Kumar Srivastava, Sunil Mohan Mukesh And 6 Others .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, which was later on converted in FIR as Case Crime No. 183/2016, under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506 IPC. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner no.3 is Government Teacher and at the relevant time he was doing duty of Assistant Teacher at Khanpur, which is more than 100 Kms. away from the place of occurrence and has taken plea of alibi. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that bare perusal of the complaint it is evident that it was instituted with malafide intention and just to settle the personal score because the petitioner no.2 had already lodged FIR against the opposite party no.2. 6. On the other hand learned AGA has submitted that the statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. has been recorded, thereafter the court has applied his mind and summons were issued after going through the record which indicates that the offence is made out, therefore, the court cannot do mini trial unless evidence is to be adduced on record. 7. Considering the facts, circumstances and arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners the fact remains that after bare perusal of the record, the offence is made out and it cannot be quashed only on the counter blast case unless the same is proved beyond reasonable doubt. I don not find any other document or submission on behalf of the petitioners which can indicate that the offence has alleged in the record of counter blast case lodged by petitioner no.2. The Court cannot do mini trial and the evidence of alibi cannot be looked into by this Court for which certainly evidence is required. The petition is dismissed. 8. However, the benefit of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5191 of 2021 is provided to the petitioners. In case the petitioners move bail application the court will passe appropriate orders, thereafter the petitioners may move application for discharge. October 14, 2025 Muk A482 No. 8534 of 2022 2 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench