Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

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

the State-respondent.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by

applicant for quashing the summoning order dated 31.5.2018

passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist Gorakhpur in

Complaint Case No.3915 of 2017, Jai Narayan Vs. Shri Ram and

others, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station

Khorabar, District Gorakhpur along with the entire proceedings.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that as per

the allegations in the complaint, it is alleged that the opposite party

no.2/complainant had executed a sale deed in favour of wife of

applicant no.2 for an area of 15 decimal. However, in the

consolidation proceedings, the area in favour of the wife of

applicant no.2 has been recorded 21 ayer from Arazi No.591 and

from another Arazi No.665, 37 ayer and in this respect,

proceedings before the Consolidation Officer is going on. A

perusal of the complaint and the statement under Section 200

Cr.P.C. of the opposite party no.2 would demonstrate that the

incident is of 12.10.2017 when both the sides were negotiating

where the dispute arose and it is alleged that the complainant was

beaten by the accused persons including the applicants, as a result

of the same, the opposite party no.2 suffered injuries. The accused

persons have also abused the opposite party no.2.

4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that

no such incident has taken place and the applicant no.1 and

applicant no.3 were not at the place of incident on the date when

the incident taken places. The present criminal proceedings are

abuse of process of law and no offence under Sections 323, 504,

506 I.P.C. is made out against the applicants.

5. Sri Anil Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party

no.2 has opposed the present application and submits that in the

complaint specific allegation has been made with regard to the

complaint being beaten by the accused persons and suffered

injuries. The injuries are not condition precedent for proceedings

under Section 323 I.P.C.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has drawn attention

to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of

Lakshman Singh Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand), 2021 (1)

SCC 191. He submits that since the complainant has suffered

injury and he has made a statement before the court concerned

under Section 200 Cr.P.C., therefore, the present application lacks

merit and is liable to be dismissed. However, he does not dispute

the fact that the proceedings for correction of the record are

pending before the consolidation court.

9. In the present case, it is to be seen that the complainant/opposite

party no.2 has filed a complaint with the allegation that the

complainant has sold the land to the wife of applicant no.2 to the

extent of 15 decimal in Arazi No.591. However, during

consolidation proceedings, the name of wife of applicant no.2 has

been recorded to the extent of 21 ayer in Arazi No.591 and upto 37

ayer in Arazi No.665. The complainant is disputing the

consolidation proceedings and in this respect, proceedings are

going on before the consolidation court.

10. It is further to be seen that in the complaint the occurrence has

taken place on 12.7.2017 where both the parties were negotiating

for settlement in which a dispute arose and it is alleged that the

accused persons have beaten the complainant, as a result of the

same, the complainant sustained injuries. The accused persons

have also abused the complainant. On the aforesaid basis,

summoning order has been issued against the applicant under

Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.

11. It is to be noted that in the complaint as well as in the statement

under Section 200 Cr.P.C. it is alleged that the accused persons

including the applicants have beaten the complainant. Learned

counsel for the appli