The court emphasized that discharge applications must be evaluated with due diligence regarding accompanying documents, and failure to do so renders the lower court's decision unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

Rajeev Misra, J.

1. Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for applicants-Ajeet And Another in Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 40226 of 2024 (Ajeet and another Vs. State of U.P. and another) and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1.

2. I have also heard Mr. Atul Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for applicant-Deshraj @ Deshraj Singh Panwar, in Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 40256 of 2023 (Deshraj @ Deshraj Singh Panwar Vs. State of U.P. and another), the learned A.G.A. for State- opposite party-1 and Mr. Ashish Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel representing first informant/opposite party-2.

3. Perused the record.

4. Applicants-Ajeet And Another have approached this Court by means of aforementioned application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:

"It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and further be pleased to quash the judgment and order dated 15.10.2024 arising out of S.T. No. 1482 of 2018, New No. 422 of 2024 in case crime No. 184 of 2018 (State Vs. Ajeet and another) under section 323, 504, 506, 452, 467, 468, 471, 420, 147, 148, 307 of I.P.C. Police Station Khoda, District Ghaziabad, Pending in the Court of Additional district and session judge Court No.16, Ghaziabad"

It is further be pleased to stay the further proceeding of S.T. No. 1482 of 2018, New No. 422 of 2024 in case crime No. 184 of 2018 (State Vs. Ajeet and another) under section 323, 504, 506, 452, 467, 468, 471, 420, 147, 148, 307 of I.P.C. Police Station-Khoda, District Ghaziabad, Pending in the Court of Additional district and session judge Court No. 16, Ghaziabad" during the pendency of the instant case before this Hon'ble court, And/or to pass such other and further order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."

5. Applicant-Deshraj @ Deshraj Singh Panwar has approached this Court by means of aforementioned application under Section 482 Cr.P.C . with the following prayer:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may very kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 323 of 2023 (Ajeet Vs. Deshraj and another) u/s 420, 406 IPC , P.S. Koda, District Ghaziabad pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad as well as quash/set-aside the impugned summoning order dated 18.08.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case Bo. 323 of 2023 (Ajeet Vs. Deshraj and another).

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the court below to permit the applicants to remain on previous bail bonds to secure the ends of justice so that justice be done and/or to pass such other and further orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

6. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred in between 07.04.2015 to 14.06.2017, a delayed FIR dated 10.10.2017 was lodged by first informant/opposite party-2, Ajeet Singh in Criminal Misc. Application No. 40256 of 2023 and was registered as Case Crime No. 0533 of 2017 under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Kheda, District-Ghaziabad. In the aforesaid FIR, two persons namely Deshraj and Rameshchandra were nominated as named accused.

7. After aforementioned FIR was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter-XII Cr.P.C. On the basis of material collected by Investigating Officer, during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that no offence as complained of is established. He accordingly submitted the final report/police report in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C.

8. Thus feeling aggrieved by aforementioned police report, first informant filed a protest petition against the same. It is apposite to mention here that under the Code i.e. Cr.P.C ., there is no provision regardi