Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1030 (ALL)

Rajesh Kewat v. State of U. P.

2016-03-18

OM PRAKASH VII

body2016
JUDGMENT Om Prakash-VII,J. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 771 of 2015 under Section 376 IPC, Police Station, Ghazipur, District - Fatehpur pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10, Fatehpur. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case and the summoning order dated 18.2.2016. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA appearing for the State. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the complaint was filed on the basis of false facts and also on the basis of malice to create pressure. It is further submitted that the husband and father-in-law of the opposite party no.2 are involved in a murder case of father of the applicant no.1. Applicant nos. 2 and 3 are the witnesses. It is further submitted that the opposite party no.2 is habitual of filing of such type of complaint. Initially a complaint was also filed against the applicant nos. 1 and 2, which was dismissed as not pressed. Later on another complaint was filed on the same set of facts and the same is still pending. It is further submitted that from the version of the complaint as well as statement of witnesses, offence under the aforesaid Sections is not made out against the applicants. The impugned order suffers from illegality and infirmity. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned AGA has submitted that applicants have been summoned on the basis of the statements recorded under Sections 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C.. The present offence has been committed by the applicants. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, after perusing the entire record and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The Magistrate dealing with complaint at this stage has to see only prima-facie case and it cannot be said that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicants. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The Magistrate dealing with complaint at this stage has to see only prima-facie case and it cannot be said that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicants. Further, the plea raised before this Court would require leading of evidence, which can be raised before the court concerned at the appropriate Stage. Hence, the prayer made in the present application is refused. 6. The application is dismissed.