The judgment emphasized the importance of prima facie evidence to support summoning orders under the Indian Penal Code and highlighted the essential elements of theft, criminal intimidation, and intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace.

JUDGMENT :

Vikram D. Chauhan, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

2. The present application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is preferred challenging the summoning order dated 7.12.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bhognipur, District – Kanpur Dehat, in Complaint Case No 877 of 2016 (Baburam Vs. Dhirendra and others) under section 379, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station – Bhognipur, District - Kanpur Dehat (U.P.).

3. In the present case, the complainant-opposite party no.2 preferred a complaint against the applicants on 2.8.2016. A copy of the complaint is filed as annexure-2 to the application. The allegations as per above-mentioned complaint is that the complainant is a resident of Village-Gaurikaran, Police Station –Bhognipur, District–Kanpur Dehat. It is further alleged that on 21.5.2016 complainant had tied up his goat just outside his house and went out of village at about 8 AM. When the complainant came back to the village on the same day at 12 o’clock and reached his house, he found that his goat was missing. When complainant started searching for his goat then he was informed by neighbours, namely, Kaloo, Ram Singh and other persons that goat of opposite party no. 2 has been taken by the applicants by way of theft. It is further alleged in the complaint that complainant thereafter along with his brother Umlesh went to the house of the applicant no.1–Dhirendra. Where complainant found that his goat was in the house of the accused persons-applicants. Further, it is alleged that when complainant confronted accused-persons with aforesaid act they started abusing and stated to the complainant to go away from his house and in future if he comes to the house again for taking the goat he would be killed. As per the complainant he had made complaint to the police however no action was taken nor his report was lodged thereafter on 23.7.2016 a letter was also sent to the Superintendent of Police and when no action was taken the present complaint was filed.

4. In aforesaid complaint case, the court concerned proceeded and have recorded the statement of complainant under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. A copy of the statement of the complainant is annexed as Annexure-3 to the petition. The complainant Babu Ram has supported the complaint and has stated that the incident took place on 21. 5.2016 when he was out of the village and when he came back his goat was not in the house where he had left. On search being made, it was informed by Ram Singh, Munna Singh, Kaloo and others that the applicants have taken away the goat of the complainant. The complainant has further stated that when he reached the house of the applicants along with his brother and confronted the accused persons they threatened and asked him to leave the place. Thereafter accused-persons have assaulted complainant and his brother and have abused. He has further stated that he went to police station and had given a complaint, however, no action was taken and only police official came to the spot. On 23.5.2016, a complaint was also sent to Superintendent of Police, however, no action was taken.

5. In support of complaint, the complainant has also examined one Kamlesh son of Shri Munnulal, who has stated that he is acquainted with the complainant and the applicants. They are resident of the same village. He has further stated that applicants have taken away goat of complainant, who is his brother. The aforesaid incident is seen by Kallu, Ram Singh and Munna. He has further stated that when his brother– complainant came back at about 12 o’clock and started looking for his goat then he came to know that the applicants have taken away goat of complainant. He has further stated that he went along with his brother to the house of applicants and found that the goat of the complainant was in the house of the applicants and when the applicants were confronted then they started ab