The court emphasized the requirement of a prima facie case to summon the accused and the necessity of injury report in determining the sufficiency of grounds for summoning the accused.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar, advocate holding brief of Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been moved to set aside the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No.138 of 2021 (Ram Sevak Vs. Data Ram and others) pending before the Additional Civil Judge (JD), Court No.5/Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri.

3. The petitioners have taken ground that the impugned summoning order dated 05.03.2022 is non est and bad in law as the concerned court has passed the impugned order without there being any subjective satisfaction of committance of offence even without recording the prima facie case while no offence is made out against the petitioners. The court below has also overlooked that there are serious contradictions in the complaint and the statements of the witnesses. There is no medical examination and no injury was caused to the respondent no.2 resulting to as alleged incident which prima facie creates doubt the allegations made in the complaint. Respondent no.2 has filed a frivolous complaint against the petitioners to pressurise them so that they do not resist his illegal possession. The plot no.81 is a very big land and the share of the petitioners is only to the extent of an area of 0.4050 hectare and the petitioners have no concern about the rest of the plot no.81. No incident had taken place on the spot that too in the morning at 04:00 a.m. which is quite impossible because in the month of February mostly the sun rises at around 06:00 am. It is very much surprising that the petitioners got awake at around 04:00 a.m. and gone to the house of the respondent. The story is totally concocted and which cannot be believed. The complaint was filed after more than two months. The police report dated 23.04.2016 did not disclose any such incident. The said report was totally ignored or disbelieved by both the courts below. There is a major contradiction in the statement of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC as he had only stated that the petitioners only slapped them and taken away the house hold articles alongwith Rs.2,000/- and put fire but nowhere stated that any injury was caused to him and his family members. On the other hand the witnesses namely PW-1 and PW-2 added some extra version in the their statements that the petitioners were armed with lathi and danda and the petitioners beaten brutally but nowhere stated that what injury has been caused to the complainant and his family members.

4. The Apex Court in Lalan Kumar Singh and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 833, specially held that the issuance of process is not a mere formality. The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether sufficient ground for proceedings exist in the case or not and the formation of such opinion is required to be stated in the order itself. In absence of any right and title over the land in question under what authority the complainant claimed to be in possession over the land. The entire story is bogus and does not require issuance of process against the petitioners. Hence, the impugned order be set aside.

5. In brief, facts of the case are that the respondent no.2, complainant moved an application Section 156(3) CrPC on 12.04.2016 to lodge an FIR against the petitioners on the ground that he had kept a hut on his land khasra no.81 area 0.607 hectare and had also kept household articles therein. On 16.02.2016 at about 04:00 a.m., Dataram, Vijay Pal, Mohar Pal and Dharm Pal sons of Raj Kumar, Annu and their family members reached there, abused and directed to vacate the land. The respondent no.2 denied to vacate the land and when he said that the land is in his name where he was pulling on his life with his family, the accused persons started beating the applicants, his wife and his children. They took away the house hold articles alongwith box in which he had kept Rs.2,000/- and als