Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89776 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31990 of 2024 Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kedar Nath Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri K.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.B. Choudhary, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant application has been filed with a prayer to quash summoning order dated 19.04.2024 and entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.19771 of 2023 (Sadhana Tiwari vs. Rakesh Kumar Pandey and others) u/s 406, 420 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District-Deoria pending in the court of A.C.J.M. Court No.19, Deoria or to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case during pendency of the application. 3. In the instant matter, the applicant claims to be a marginal witness of the sale deed whereby O.P. no.2 has bought a plot. However, when O.P. no.2 went to take possession of the plot, it was objected by some other people, then he came to know that the plot was disputed property for which the applicant had brokered the deal. Feeling cheated, O.P. no.2 moved an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 02.09.2023 against the applicants and others, which has been treated as a complaint case and after adducing evidence, summoning order has been passed on 19.04.2024, which has been assailed in this application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is only a marginal witness to the sale deed and he has nothing to do with the plot and if there is any dispute, the same is between the buyer and seller of the plot in question and also the persons, who have stopped the construction work on the plot. He further submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has not committed the offences as alleged in the complaint. He next contended that proceedings under Section 420, 406 IPC cannot go on simultaneously. He next argued that the impugned summoning order passed by the concerned Magistrate in routine manner without applying judicial mind. He submitted that the entire proceeding initiated by O.P. no.2 is nothing but an abuse of process of law. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that there is serious allegation against the applicant that he was involved in getting the disputed plot sold to O.P. no.2 for which he has also received some amount. He further submitted that the court below has rightly summoned the applicants and no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order as well as the on going proceedings. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The allegation levelled against the applicant is of getting a disputed plot sold to O.P. no.2, which seems to be serious offence. The applicant has brokered the deal or not or whether he has received any amount or not can be seen and adjudged only by the trial court only during the course of trial and not by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. From the perusal of 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 applicants. The arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicant are all disputed question 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. 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, and lastly, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 has held that only those cases in which no prima facie case is made out can be considered in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 9. The instant application does not fall under the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments mentioned above, and followed in a number of matters. Moreover, the facts as alleged cannot be said that, prima facie, no offence is made out against the applicants. It is only after the evidence and trial, it can be seen as to whether the offence, as alleged, has been committed or not. 10. However, it is open for the applicants to take all its defence in the trial. 11. Hence, the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 Manish Himwan Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad