The main legal point established is that the summoning of an accused in a criminal case requires the Magistrate to conduct a proper inquiry, apply judicial discretion, and ensure that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Application, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the Applicants, Vijendra Singh, Raghuraj Singh and Udham Singh, against State of U.P. and Lekhraj, Son of Ratan Singh, with a prayer for quashing of entire criminal proceeding, including, setting aside summoning order, dated 17.7.2019, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Jewar, Gautam Buddh Nagar, in Complaint Case No. 103 of 2017 (Incorrectly mentioned as Criminal Complaint Case No.103 of 2015 in the Application), Lekhraj vs. Vijendra and others, for ofences, punishable, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC, Police Station- Jewar, Distric-Gautam Buddh Nagar

2. Learned counsel for applicants argued that an application, under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (In short 'Cr.P.C.'), has been filed by Mukesh against Kishan Singh, Vikas @ Bablu, Girdhari Lal Saini and Shyam Lal Saini, for an occurrence, alleged to be of 4.1.2017, wherein, the Magistrate took cognizance over it, treating it to be a complaint case, and examined the complainant, Mukesh, under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and his witness, under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., where upon, accused persons, therein, Kishan, Vikas @ Bablu, Girdhari Lal Saini, Shyam Lal Saini and Bijendra, were summoned, for offences, punishable, under Sections 452, 458, 508 and 120B of Indian Penal Code (In short 'IPC'). This order was challenged before this Court, in a proceeding, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., being Application U/S 482 No.27477 of 2018, Vijendra Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, wherein, summoning order was quashed, vide order, dated 27.8.2018, relying upon principles laid down by the Apex court as well as this Court, mentioned in above order. Again, with same malice, this false complaint was filed, with a little variance of date of occurrence by the father of the complainant, i.e., Lekhraj, wherein, occurrence is said to be of 26.8.2016, at 9.30 PM, in night, and it was for causing damage to the boundary wall of the house of the complainant, but no summoning was there, for offence, punishable, under Section 427 of IPC, rather, impugned summoning order was passed for offences, punishable, under Section 323, 504 and 506 of IPC, and it was based on the enquiry made by the Magisrate, wherein, statements of complainant, Lekhraj, was recorded, under Section 200 and his son, under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., and on this testimony only, impugned summoning order has been passed, whereas, in previous proceeding, this Court has appreciated principles laid down, by the Apex Court, in the case of M/S. Pepsi Food Ltd. & another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & others, reported in 1998, UPCr.R 118, that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. But, impugned summoning order, passed herein, is apparently, without application of judicial mind by the Magistrate, concerned. Hence, it was misuse of process of court and, therefore, this proceeding, with above prayer for setting aside same.

3. Learned AGA, representing State of U.P., has vehemently opposed this Application.

4. Heard learned counsel for both sides and gone through materials on record as well as impugned summoning order.

5. From very perusal of the complaint, which was filed for an occurrence of 4.1.2017, it is apparent that dispute regarding boundary wall, in between Vijendra and complainant, has been there and for this dispute, alleged occurrence has been said to have been committed, wherein proceedings, under Sections 107/116 of Cr.PC, in between two sides, were said to have been taken by the Executive Magistrate.

6. This fact of dispute and same being a motive for this repeated filing of complaint is being argued by learned counsel for applicants.

7. Present occurrence is not a subsequent occur