The court affirmed that a mere civil dispute does not justify quashing a summoning order under Section 319, provided sufficient evidence exists to support the summoning of an accused.

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Vidyarthi, J.

1. Heard Sri Digvijai Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, the learned AGA-I for the State and perused the record. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant has prayed for quashing of the order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge V/Special Judge, Gangsters Act, Gonda in Session Trial No. 1150/2022 ( State Vs. Vijay Singh and others ) arising out of Case Crime No.0148/2022, under Sections 307 r/w 34, 323 r/w 34, 324 and r/w 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Paraspur, District Gonda, whereby the applicant has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face the trial and he has also sought quashing of the entire proceeding of the aforesaid case.

3. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 23.06.2020 against four persons, including the applicant, stating that because of a property dispute all the accused persons attacked the informant’s house on 23.06.2020, they abused and assaulted the informant with sticks and banka.

4. The medico legal examination report of the informant mentions two lacerated wounds on his head besides complain of pain on right shoulder, left wrist joint and right lower limb. The CT examination report of the informant mentions few hemorrhagic contusions and mildly displaced fracture of right parietal bone.

5. In the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he reiterated the FIR version. Some family members of the informant reiterated the FIR version but some independent witnesses stated that the applicant was not present at the time of the incident.

6. After investigation, the investigating officer submitted a charge-sheet on 04.09.2020 against the other three accused persons only and he exonerated the applicant.

7. The trial Court has recorded statement of the informant/victim as PW-1 and he stated about involvement of the applicant along with other accused persons in assaulting him. PW-1 has been cross-examined but no such fact has come to light during his cross-examination as may belie the statement given in examination-in-chief. Even during cross- examination, PW-1 categorically stated that all the accused persons had beaten him up and he had suffered five injuries in the incident. He stated that two accused persons had assaulted him with sticks and two accused had assaulted him with farsa.

8. PW-2 (Reeta Singh) is daughter-in-law of the informant/victim and she stated that Vijay and Ankur had assaulted her father-in-law with Farsa and the applicant and co-accused Amit had assaulted him with sticks. She raised a hue & cry whereupon some persons came there, saved her father in-law and took him for treatment.

9. After examination of PW-1 and PW-2, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed on 14.02.2024 which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the trial Court.

10. Assailing validity of the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that for summoning an accused person under Section 319 Cr.P.C., it is necessary that the trial Court should record a satisfaction that the material that has come on record is sufficient to give rise to more than prima facie satisfaction that the persons sought to be