The court emphasized the necessity for consistent evidence in summoning orders and declared the proceedings an abuse of process due to contradictions and retaliatory motives behind the complaint.

JUDGMENT :

Rajnish Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri Mohammad Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Rakesh Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

2. The instant application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (here-in-after referred as CrPC) has been filed for setting aside the summoning order dated 13.04.2021 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) / Judicial Magistrate, Raibarelly in Complaint Case No.9/2019 (new Case No.22/2019); Mohd. Ismayl Khan Vs. Sarfaraj and Others, under Sections 147 , 427, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Jayas, District Amethi pending in the court of learned Fast Track Court / S.D., Raibarelly and the order dated 18.04.2022 passed by learned Fifth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raibarelly in Criminal Revision No.12/2022; Mohd. Jaleel Vs. Mohd. Ismayl Khan and Others and the order dated 30.07.2022 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raibarelly in Criminal Revision No.139/2022; Sarfaraj and Others Vs. State of U.P. and another alongwith the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No.9/2019 (new Case No.22/2019); Mohd. Ismayl Khan Vs. Sarfaraj and Others, pending in the court of learned Fast Track Court / S.D., Raibarelly.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the complaint has been filed only in a counter blast to F.I.R. lodged by the applicants bearing F.I.R. No.0057 of 2018, under Sections 504 , 506 I.P.C. at Police Station Jayas, District Amethi in regard to the incident dated 10.04.2018 by the applicant No.1 against the respondent No.2 and three other persons and to give colour of criminal to a civil dispute between the parties. He further submitted that the applicant No.1 is aged about 101 years of age and at the time of alleged incident in 2018, he was about 96 years of age, therefore, the question of incident as alleged by the respondent No.2 itself is misconceived and not tenable.

4. He further submitted that the impugned orders have been passed without considering the contradictions in the statements of the complainant and the witnesses, in which one of the witness is an accused in the aforesaid F.I.R. lodged by the applicant No.1. He further submitted that the complaint has been filed after about 8 months of the incident after coming to know about the filing of charge sheet against the respondent No.2 and others. He further submitted that the learned revisional court also failed to consider the grounds raised by the applicants and dismissed the revisions, therefore, the applicants are constraint to approach this Court by means of present application under Section 482 CrPC.

5. On the basis of above, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the instant application under Section 482 CrPC is liable to be allowed and the impugned orders are liable to be set aside alongwith the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case.

6. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that the impugned orders have been passed after considering the evidence and material on record. He further submitted that the applicant No.1 got his name recorded fraudulently on the land of respondent No.2, in regard to which the civil proceedings are pending and an interim order has been granted by this Court, even then the applicants tried to plough the field of the respondent No.2 and on being confronted, they had committed the crime, for which, the complaint has been filed, in which the applicants