HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 51823 of 2025 Court No. - 81 HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J. 1. Learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State are present. 2. None appears on behalf of the opposite party nos.3 to 8, even in the revised call. 3. As per office report dated 15.04.2026, notices issued to the opposite party nos.3 to 8, in compliance of the order dated 14.01.2026, has been served personally upon them, therefore, service is sufficient on opposite party no.3 to 8. 4. This application u/s 528 BNSS has been preferred by the applicant with prayer to quash the order dated 23.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.5, Saharanpur, in Criminal Revision No.422 of 2024 (Smt. Bala Vs. State of U.P. and another) and order the dated 22.08.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Third, Saharanpur, in Complaint No.641 of 2024 (Smt. Bala Vs. Molhad and Others), under sections 427 and 323 of IPC, Police Station Gagalhedi, District Saharanpur. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant in the present application is the complainant in Complaint No.641 of 2024 (Smt. Bala Vs. Molhad and Others), under sections 427 and 323 of IPC, Police Station Gagalhedi, District Saharanpur. The present application has been Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd. Kamar Shah Alam Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Smt. Bala .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 7 Others .....Opposite Party(s) moved before this Court by the applicant/complainant being aggrieved by order dated 23.04.2025 passed in Criminal Revision No.422 of 2024 (Smt. Bala Vs. State of U.P. and another), by the learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.5, Saharanpur, by which the revision filed by the applicant/complainant against the order dated 22.08.2024 was rejected, hence present application is maintainable. 6. On the other hand, learned AGA for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the revisional court vide its order dated 23.04.2025 rightly uphold the order of the lower court dated 22.08.2024 with respect to the settled position of law regarding the summoning of the accused in a complaint case, stating therein that there is no need to do an analysis of the the truth or facts, only a prima facie case is required at the stage of issuing of process under Section 204 C.r.P.C. The conclusion given by the trial court in the order dated 22.08.2024 is completely factual in nature which is supported by the affidavit and oral evidence available at the stage of preliminary investigation which does not warrant any interference whatsoever, hence the application is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard Mohd. Kamar Shah Alam, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 8. Perusal of record shows that, an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicant/complainant before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Third, Saharanpur on 11.03.2024, which was subsequently registered as Complaint Case No.641 of 2024. Thereafter, as per the direction of the trial court, statements of the applicant/complainant as well as the witnesses were recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., respectively and on the basis of the said statements, learned trial court has summoned the accused Santosh wife of Boby, under section 427 IPC and also summoned the accused Ankit under sections 427 and 323 IPC, vide order dated 22.08.2024, on the ground that there is prosecutable evidence available against the said accused persons, and the complaint of the NA528 No. 51823 of 2025 2 applicant/complainant was rejected against rest of the accused persons. 9. Perusal of record also shows that being aggrieved with the order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the learned trial court, the applicant/complainant has preferred the revision before the revisional court i.e. learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.5, Saharanpur, which was registered as Criminal Revision No.422 of 2024 (Smt. Bala Vs. State of U.P. and another) and the same was rejected by the learned revisional court vide its order dated 23.04.2025, with the observation that the decision of the learned trial court is founded on the facts and initial inquiry that is supported by the oral evidence, and there is no ground for interference at the stage of revision with the order of trial court and the revisionist can raise the matter again at appropriate stage (i.e. under sections 319 Cr.P.C / 358 BNSS). 10. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that the findings of the revisional court are based on the relevant procedural aspects and the decision of the trial court is founded on the thorough examination of the complaint, witnesses and the evidences submitted before the trial court by the applicant/complainant and no where the order of the learned court discloses any abuse of the process of the court. Both the orders are followed by the procedural aspects as incorporated in the Cr.P.C./BNSS and there is no evidence, which shows that the trial court as well as revisional court have committed any apparent error or abuse of the process of the court. Therefore, the interference of this Court in the present case is unwarranted and present application is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the present application u/s 528 BNSS is hereby dismissed. April 23, 2026 VKG NA528 No. 51823 of 2025 3 (Achal Sachdev,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad