Court No. - 69

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1350 of 2023

Applicant :- Jagdish Prasad And 8 Others

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

Heard Sri Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

applicants, Sri Siddharth Baghel, learned Brief

Holder for the State and perused the record.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to

quash the summoning order dated 06.10.2022 as

well as entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 84

of 2022 (Ikram vs. Jagdish and others) under

sections 323, 354 IPC, Police Station

Garhmukteshwar, District Hapur.

Brief facts are that the First Information Report

was lodged on the basis of an application under

Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 10.8.2022 by the

opposite party no. 2-Ikram Ahmad under Sections

147, 354, 354-kha, 323, and 392 IPC against the

applicants, Ankur (now deceased) and unknown

persons, the same is Annexure-6 to the Affidavit.

The investigation took place and Final Report No.

86 of 2020 dated 29.8.2022 was submitted in

favour of the accused persons, the copy of which

is Annexure-9 to the affidavit. Against the said

final report, a detailed objection/protest petition

dated 13.10.2021 was filed by the opposite party

no. 2, the same is Annexure-10 to the affidavit.

The court concerned, vide order dated 12.1.2022,

rejected the said final report and directed the

matter to be registered as a complaint. The said

order is Annexure-11 to the affidavit. The

statement of the complainant/opposite party no. 2

was recorded under Setion 200 Cr.P.C on

18.2.2022 and the statement of his witnesses,

namely, Shabana/PW-1, Asif/PW-2, Nizam Ali/PW-3

and Islam/PW-4 were recorded. The Trial Court,

vide its order dated 06.10.2022 summoned the

applicants to face trial under Sections 323, 354-A

IPC, the said order is Annexure-14 to the affidavit.

Learned counsel for the applicants argued that

applicants have been falsely implicated in the

present case. It is argued that the present case as

instituted is that mala fide intentions and a

counter blast to the cases initiated by the

applicants. It is further argued that the applicant

no. 1 lodged an FIR on 08.06.2020 against Imran,

Ikram, Phurkan, Inam and Ismail, all sons of Irphan

in which charge-sheet was submitted against the

accused persons under Sections 447, 457, and 380

IPC on which cognizance has been taken by the

concerned Trial Court and the accused persons

have been summoned. It is argued that in the

meantime as a counter blast an application under

section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved against the

applicants on the basis of which the present FIR

has been lodged. It is further argued that the

opposite party no. 2 has filed a civil suit for

eviction from the shop in question against the

applicant no. 1, the same is pending before the

concerned Civil Court. It is also argued that after

filing of the Final Report No. 86 of 2020, the Circle

Officer, vide order dated 16.10.2020, directed for

further investigation of the matter by another

Investigating Officer who had taken up the

investigation and had closed the investigation

which was not considered by the Trial Court. It is

next argued that no offence whatsoever is made

out against the applicants. There is no specific role

assigned to the applicants. It is further argued that

the Trial Court has while passing orders

summoning the applicants not considered the

matter in detail. The present application, thus, is

good on merits of law and deserves to be allowed.

Per contra learned counsel for the State opposed

the prayer for quashing.

After having heard learned counsel for the parties

and perusing the records, it is evident that the

applicants are named in the FIR. The