HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 271 of 2025 Court No. - 51 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and thelearned A.G.A. for the State. Despite the fact that notice has been served upon opposite party no.2 as per office report dated 21st April, 2026, no one has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 even in the revised reading of the list. 2. The present appeal has been filed with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 4th October, 2023 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 02 of 2022 (Kumari Sarina Vs. Vedram & Others), under SEctions 452, 354, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3 (1) (da) and 3 (1) (dha) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989, Police Station-Karhal District-Mainpuri. 3. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellants are innocent, as the present complaint case is false and fabricated with ulterior motive. The present complaint case filed by opposite party no.2 is nothing but a bundle of lie and the same has been filed only for exploiting the appellants by indulging their names in a fake, false and frivolous case. The entire prosecution story as unfolded in the complaint case is absolutely a self- made story projected by opposite party no.2 in order to harass the appellants. It is further submitted that initially for the incident dated 6th October, 2021 at 05:00 p.m. the appellant no.2 lodged a first information report against the brothers of opposite party no.2, namely, Ramlakhan and Umesh and in the said incident, the hand of the appellant no.2 has been fractured. The present complaint case has been engineered against the appellants as counter blast to the criminal proceedings initiated by appellant no.2. It is lastly submitted that the injuries sustained by the brothers of opposite party no.2 are simple in nature. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. He submits that it is a cross case filed by both the parties Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Rahul Shekhar Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Vedram And 2 Others .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) against each other in which persons of both sides sustained injuries and at this stage only prima facie case has to be seen. 5. Since the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence, the same can only be decided after conclusion of the trial by examining oral as well as documentary evidence adduced during the course of trial. 6. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. and perused the material available on record including the impugned order. 7. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the appellant at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and lastly, State of U.P. Vs. Akhil Sharda & Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 820. 8. In the opinion of the Court if the Magistrate finds that the criminal case or complaint is supported with material evidence and there appears prima facie case to have been made out that will be the sufficient ground for summoning as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Chandra Dev Singh Vs. Prakash Chandra Bose reported in ACR 1964 (1) 639 and Smt. Nagbba Vs. Viranna Shivlingappa Konjalgi & Others reported in 1976 (13) ACC 22 (SC). 9. In the present case, it is admitted that it is a case of cross case and each parties have initiated cases against each other for the alleged incident in which persons of both sides have sustained injuries. This Court is of the present opinion that in the present case, the Magistrate on the basis of documentary evidence like injury reports of the brothers of the opposite party no.2 available on record along with the statements of witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and the version as unfolded in the complaint, has found sufficient grounds and reasons to summon the appellants-accused and accordingly, the trial court has summoned them to face trial. The trial court has not found any material contradictions between the contents of the complaint and the statements of witnesses which supported CRLA No. 271 of 2025 2 by injury report. 10. After deeper scrutiny, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is based on well detailed discussion of the documentary material and evidence on record. As such, this Court finds that the Magistrate has rightly summoned the accused-appellants for facing trial and there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. The delay in lodging of the first information report has also been explained by learned counsel for opposite party no.2 referred to above. As such, the impugned order is correct and the same is liable to be confirmed. 11. The prayer for quashing the aforesaid summoning order as well as entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused. 12. The present criminal appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. May 5, 2026 Sushil/- CRLA No. 271 of 2025 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad