Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50694 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23908 of 2024 Applicant :- Komil Prasad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jay Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard Sri Jay Singh Yadav, learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 24.05.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Pilibhit in Criminal Revision No. 206 of 2023 CNR No. UPPB010061102023 (Mukesh Kumar Vs. Komil Prasad and Another), whereby the revision filed by opposite party no. 2 against summoning order has been allowed and matter has been remanded back to the learned Magistrate. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that impugned order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside. The applicant / complainant has made clear allegations that on pretext of providing a job to his son in hospital, the opposite party no. 2 has taken total amount of Rs. 2 lakhs from him. Amount of Rs. one lakh was given in cash and Rs. one lakh was given through cheque. It was submitted that neither any job was provided to the son of opposite party no. 2 / complainant nor his amount was returned back. Learned Magistrate has considered entire facts and summoned the opposite party no. 2 under Section 406 I.P.C. by summoning order dated 14.07.2023. It is submitted that by impugned order learned Revisional Court has quashed the said summoning order in an arbitrary manner and remanded the matter to the Magistrate concerned. Learned counsel has referred facts of the matter and submitted that impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. Perusal of record shows that applicant has filed a complaint against opposite party no. 2 making allegations that on pretext of providing a job to the son of complainant in hospital, the opposite party no. 2 has taken Rs. 2 lakhs from applicant. It was further alleged that neither any job was provided to son of applicant nor his amount was returned back. The applicant / complainant was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and two witnesses namely, Chhotelal and Morepal were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The opposite party no. 2 was summoned by learned Magistrate vide summoning order dated 14.07.2023. It appears that the opposite party no. 2 has preferred a Criminal Revision against the summoning order dated 14.07.2023 before the Session Court. The Session Court has observed that the summoning order has been passed in a mechanical manner without making any reference to the statement of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and quashed the summoning order and matter was remanded back to the Magistrate to pass an order afresh. In view of material on record and facts of the matter, it can not be said that impugned order is suffering from any patent illegality or that there has been any abuse of the process of Court or the impugned order has resulted into any miscarriage of justice. As the matter has been remanded back to the learned Magistrate, applicant can raise his case before the Magistrate concerned. Considering entire facts, no case for invoking powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out and thus, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed. 7. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 SK Srivastava Digitally signed by :- SAILESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad