The court emphasized that allegations lacking evidence do not justify the summoning of accused, highlighting the necessity of due diligence by the Magistrate under Section 482 of the CrPC.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Bajaj, J.

1. Applicants-Accused have filed this application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the Complaint Case No. 1228 of 2011; titled Udai Raj vs. Ram Surat Singh and others, as well as the impugned summoning order dated 27th February, 2016 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Faizabad, whereby they have been summoned for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 IPC, and the entire proceedings arising therefrom.

2. The facts in brief leading to the petition are that initially on the basis of a complaint given by Udai Raj-opposite party no. 2, a Case Crime No. 42 of 2011, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Haiderganj, District Faizabad (Annexure No. 8) was registered, wherein it is alleged that he belongs to a scheduled caste category and is a poor person. The land comprised in Gata No. 638 situated at Village Baintikala, Police Station Haiderganj, District Faizabad is in the name of his mother, and the accused namely Ram Surat Singh alongwith his sons exercised influence upon the officials of the Consolidation department, and by using a forged compromise purportedly on behalf of complainant's mother got the said land entered in their favour. The officials of the Consolidation department also connived with them, and in this regard, on 28th November, 2010, when complainant asked for information from Ram Surat Singh, in response, they all abused him in the name of his caste and extended threats. A complaint was given to the police, but no action was taken, therefore, the complainant resorted to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., whereupon the above noticed FIR was registered.

3. After registration of the case, the investigation was conducted, and finally, nothing incriminating was found against the accused persons, who were declared innocent through the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. dated 28th April, 2011 (Annexure No. 11).

4. Aggrieved against the said final report, the complainant instituted a protest petition dated 1.7.2011 (Annexure No. 12), and thereafter, in support of the complaint, he got recorded his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and his mother-Faguna Devi also appeared to support his version. Considering the contents of the complaint and the pre-summoning evidence, only three accused persons (applicants) were summoned for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 IPC, whereas no incriminating evidence was found against the rest of the accused arraigned in the complaint.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants-accused has argued that the entire case of the complainant is based upon documentary material and the allegations contained in the complaint were thoroughly investigated by police initially after FIR (Annexure No. 8) was registered and nothing was found against the accused persons. Learned counsel next submits that the complainant has been taking conflicting stands, who initially in his version contained in the FIR has levelled allegations against Ram Surat Singh and officials of the Consolidation department, but in the protest petition/complaint, he has chosen to implicate the applicant nos. 2 and 3 also. Learned counsel submits that the summoning order dated 27th February, 2016 has been passed in a mechanical manner, and the background of the case, as well as evidence on record has not been carefully examined, much less to record a satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the accused. Learned counsel has further argued that as per the allegations, the dispute between the parties related to the consolidation proceedings, but the said dispute stands finally adjudicated in favour of the applicants, therefore, it is evident that the prosecution of the accused is attended with malafide. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order is against the s