The main legal point established is the sparing and cautious exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the requirement to consider only the existence of a prima facie case at the time of summoning.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Application, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the Applicants, Ashok Kumar and Rinku, wife of Mukesh, against State of U.P. and Ramesh Chandra, with a prayer for setting aside summoning order, dated 1.7.2019, passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, court no. 6, Moradabad, in Complaint Case No. 4942 of 2018, Ramesh Chandra vs. Ashok Kumar and another, under Section 499 of IPC, Police Station- Chhajlet, District Moradabad, and the order of Revisional court, dated 31.8.2019, passed by the Sessions Judge, Moradabad in Criminal Revision No.124 of 2019, Ashok Kumar and another vs. State of U.P. and another.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the impugned summoning order was against facts on record. Ingredients of offence, punishable under Section 499 of IPC, were not fulfilled. Complaints, by applicants, were made for irregularities, committed by complainant-Village Pradhan and it can never amount an offence, punishable, under Section 499 of IPC, whereas, complainant himself has committed offence against applicants for which case was got registered and in response to the same, present complaint was filed, wherein, there was variance in the statements, recorded, under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. Complainant, in his statement, recorded, under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., has categorically said about assault made by accused persons, but there is no summoning under Section 323 of Cr.P.C. Applicant no.2, Rinku, is a lady, living under veil, and she has no concern with occurrence, even then, she has been summoned. Witnesses, examined, under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., were pocket witnesses of complainant and this summoning order was challenged before Revisional court, wherein, Revisional court failed to appreciate facts and evidence on record and, thereby, dismissed revision, vide impugned order, dated 31.8.2019. Hence, for avoiding abuse of process of law, this Application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for invoking, inherent power of this Court, has been moved, with above prayer.

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

4. Having heard learned counsel for both sides and gone through impugned orders as well as materials on record, it is apparent that a complaint was filed by the complainant Ramesh Chandra against Ashok Kumar and Smt. Rinku for offence, punishable, under Section 499, 500, 504 and 506 of I.P.C., with accusation that complainant is an elected Village Pradhan and Ashok Kumar was his contestant, but he lost in election, owing to which enmity between them developed and Ashok Kumar, himself, and also through his family members used to make complaints before Block Development Officer and other higher ups. These complaints were got investigated and were found un-substantiated by facts. They were bogus and frivolous complaints and, accordingly, stood rejected, but this created disrepute to complainant for which he made a query from those accused persons, but they became abusive and extended threat of dire consequences, which was witnessed by Amar Singh and Harpal. Attempts were made for getting case registered, but of no avail. Hence, this complaint has been made. Magistrate took cognizance over it and examined complainant, under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. His witness were examined, under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. Those witnesses and complainant were fully intact and reiterated contention of complaint. Hence, on the basis of it, impugned summoning order was passed, which was challenged before Revisional court and Sessions Judge, Moradabad, dismissed revision, vide impugned order, dated 31.8.2019. Judgments of Apex Court were cited in this order, wherein, repeatedly, it has been propounded that at the time of summoning, only existence of prima facies case is to be seen, and meticulous analysis of evidence is not to be made at the juncture of summoning. In the present cases, there was sufficient evidence for passing of im