Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:5492 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27445 of 2024 Applicant :- Lalit Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Aakansha Singh Chandraul,Mithyanjay Singh,Ranjana Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the summoning order dated 18.03.2024, passed by learned C.J.M., Saharanpur, in Complaint Case No. 22300 of 2022, under Sections 325, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Nagal, District Saharanpur, whereby opposite party nos. 2 to 6 have been summoned for the offence under Sections 325, 504, 506 I.P.C. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is complainant of the aforesaid case, which was filed against opposite party nos. 2 to 7, making several allegations. It was specifically alleged by the complainant that opposite party nos. 2 to 6 have trespassed into his house but opposite party nos. 2 to 6 have been summoned only for the offence under Sections 325, 504, 506 I.P.C. and not for the offence under Section 452 I.P.C., whereas a prima facie case under Section 452 I.P.C. is made out. It is further submitted that the allegations were also levelled against opposite party no. 7 Indrajeet Singh, who was working as police Sub Inspector, but he has not been summoned by learned Magistrate. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that a prima facie case against opposite party nos. 2 to 6 for the offence under Section 452 I.P.C. is made out and similarly, a case against opposite party no. 7 is also made out and thus, impugned order is against facts and law and thus, 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 summoning order. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. It is well settled that at the stage of summoning the Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record in order to consider whether a prima facie case is made out or not. The Magistrate is not bound to summon the proposed accused persons under all the sections mentioned in the complaint, rather it is to be considered as to what specific offences are made out. In the instant matter perusal of record shows that the applicant has made a merely vague allegation that opposite party nos. 2 to 6 came at his house and did 'maarpeet' with him. There is no specific allegation of house trespass. In view of the allegations made in the complaint and statement of complainant, recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., as well as statements of witnesses, examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it could not be said that learned Magistrate has committed any patent illegality or did any abuse of the process of court by not summoning the opposite party nos. 2 to 6 for the offence under Section 452 I.P.C. or by not summoning the opposite party no. 7. The inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C have to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Though the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C are very wide but the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Such powers have to be exercised only to give effect to any order under Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of the process of any court and to secure the ends of justice. In the instant matter no such exigency could be shown. 7. In view of the aforesaid, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has no force and thus, the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 10.1.2025 Anand Digitally signed by :- ANAND VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad