JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

2. In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to opposite party no.2 is dispensed with.

3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 08.03.2022 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.1397 of 2019 under Sections 323, 452, 392 I.P.C., Police Station-Dhane Pur, District-Gonda.

4. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the opposite party no.2 moved a false and frivolous application u/s 156(3) CrPC against the applicant and the said application was treated as complaint case. Thereafter, on the basis of statements of the opposite party no.2 and witnesses recorded u/s 200 & 202 CrPC respectively, the trial court without applying judicial mind wrongly summoned the applicant.

5. It is next submitted that no offence as described in the complaint case or in the statement of the complainant as well as witnesses recorded during the course of investigation has taken place and the whole story as narrated in the complaint case as well as in the statements of the complainant as well as witnesses have been cooked and manufactured, therefore, the court below has materially erred in summoning the applicant, as such the orders are liable to be set aside.

6. Before arguing the case on merits, learned counsel for the applicant while pressing the present petition submits that the court below while summoning the applicant has materially erred and did not follow the dictum of law as propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases that summoning in criminal case is a serious matter and the court below without dwelling into material and visualizing the case on the touch stone of probability should not summon accused person to face criminal trial. It is further submitted that the court below has not taken into consideration the material placed before the trial court and, therefore, the trial court has materially erred in summoning the applicant.

7. So far as quashing of entire proceedings is concerned, from the perusal of the 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 applicant. All the submission made relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, 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. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge according to the provisions prescribed in Cr.P.C., as the case may be, through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.

8. So far as the cognizance and summoning order passed by the learned trial court is concerned, at the stage of taking cognizance, trial court can simply form an opinion as to whether the case is fit for taking and committing the matter for trial or not. In the present case, learned trial court clearly expressed his opinion that he perused all the record and clearly indicated that the material placed before him is sufficient to proceed the case. Thus, the cognizance order is not a proforma order. Every aspect is touched by learned trial court and petitioner failed to adduce any evidence which caused prejudiced to him. So, the cognizance and summoning order is perfectly valid and there is no occasion to quash the same.

9. The prayer for quashing the impugned summoning order as well as impugned proceedings is refused.

10. However, considering the facts and circ