HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1183 of 2025 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Prashant Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Raj Deo Singh, learned counsel for private respondent and Sri R.K. Singh, learned AGA for State respondent. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 17.11.2022 passed by the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, District Moradabad, in Complaint Case No. 43023 of 2022 (Vivek Agrawal v. Rajeev Agrawal and Another), under Sections 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He has further prayed for quashing the revisional order dated 07.07.2023 passed by the Court of the Sessions Judge, District Moradabad, in Criminal Revision No. 38 of 2023 (Rajeev Agrawal v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another). He has also prayed for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 43023 of 2022, pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, District Moradabad. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent is his maternal brother and that a civil dispute between them has been pending since the year 2016. The respondent had also instituted Original Suit No. 63 of 2016 (Suresh Chandra Agarwal vs. Show Plywood Private Limited and Others), but failed to obtain any relief therein. It is alleged that the respondent lodged an FIR being Case Crime No. 81 of 2021 under Sections 323, 504, 506, and 392 IPC against the petitioner. In the said FIR, it was falsely alleged that on 26.10.2020, the petitioner, along with his associates, robbed and assaulted the respondent near National Highway-24 (NH-24), Police Station Mudhapandey, District Moradabad. It was further submitted Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rishab Agrawal, Vinayak Mithal Counsel for Respondent(s) : Raj Deo Singh, G.A. Rajeev Agrawal .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) that the matter was thoroughly investigated and the allegations were found to be false. The mobile location of the petitioner did not place him at the scene of the alleged incident. Consequently, a final report was submitted. Thereafter, the respondent filed a protest petition, which was treated as a complaint case. In Complaint Case No. 43023 of 2022, the respondent produced two witnesses, both of whom are his friends and had also been produced in another complaint case filed by the respondent against other persons. Relying upon the statements of the respondent and his witnesses, the petitioner was summoned by order dated 17.11.2022 to face trial under Sections 323, 504, and 506 IPC. It was submitted that neither was the petitioner found involved in the alleged offence nor was any recovery made from him during investigation, which resulted in submission of the final report. These material facts were allegedly overlooked by the Trial Court while passing the summoning order, which was based solely on the statements of interested witnesses. It was further submitted that a purely civil dispute has been given a criminal colour, and therefore, the summoning order dated 17.11.2022 suffers from perversity. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No.38 of 2023 (Rajeev Agrawal vs. State of U.P. and Others), which was dismissed without proper consideration of the evidence collected during investigation. It was thus contended that both the orders passed by the Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court are illegal and liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned AGA for the State as well as for the private respondent submitted that the respondent sustained injuries during the alleged incident, which were medically examined on the very next day. It was argued that the respondent suffered as many as five injuries, and the existence of such injuries negates the possibility of false implication. It was further submitted that the pendency of civil litigation cannot absolve the petitioner of criminal liability if he has, in fact, assaulted the respondent. The prosecution case cannot be discarded merely on account of the pendency of a civil dispute. It was also submitted that the Trial Court, while passing the summoning order under Section 202 Cr.P.C., was satisfied that sufficient grounds existed to proceed against the petitioner. Such satisfaction, having been affirmed by the Revisional Court, cannot be re-evaluated at this stage. It was therefore contended that no interference is warranted with the impugned orders. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders A227 No. 1183 of 2025 2 passed by the courts below. 6. It is true that a final report was submitted in the FIR lodged against the petitioner. However, once the protest petition was treated as a complaint case, the said final report lost its significance, and the Court proceeded on the basis of the statements of the complainant and his witnesses. So far as the contention regarding the witnesses being interested witnesses is concerned, the same involves disputed questions of fact, which can only be adjudicated during the course of trial. At this stage, it would not be appropriate to record any finding on such issues. 7. Accordingly, both the impugned orders are upheld, and the writ petition is dismissed. May 12, 2026 Mukesh A227 No. 1183 of 2025 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad