JUDGMENT : 1. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants Subhas, Deewan Singh, Rahul, Virendra Singh and Satya Kishore against State of U.P. and Balbeer Singh, with a prayer for quashing the summoning order dated 24.12.2018, passed in Criminal Complaint Case No. 305 of 2018 (Balbeer Singh Vs. Ram Singh and others), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Auraiya, District Auraiya, pending the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/F.T.C., Auraiya. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that Case Crime No. 403 of 2016, was got registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 of I.P.C., at Police Station Kotwali Auraiya, District Auraiya, on 9.6.2016 at about 22:15 hours, upon the report of Smt. Gyanwati against Badan Singh, Murari, Sahveer @ Sanju, Yaduveer, Deenu and Rinku, with this contention that informant’s son Ram Singh, aged about 25 years, along with his nephew Ashish, aged about 15 years, was at their way to home from market and at about 3:30 P.M., when they reached near Jaruhuliya ki madaiya, those named accused persons, who were hiding themselves thereat, came and they with intention to kill, did assault over Ram Singh and Ashish. This was by lathi-danda. Firearm shot too, was extended, resulting in grievous hurt to Ram Singh and Ashish, who under threat ran from spot for saving his life. Informant and others rushed on spot, took injured Ram Singh at Government Hospital, Auraiya, from where he was referred to PGI Saifai. At PGI Saifai, he was reported to be dead. His dead body was lying thereat and this report was got lodged. Subsequently, case crime number for the same occurrence was got registered upon the report of Sri Balbeer Singh on 12.6.2016 at 22:00 hours, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC, against Ram Singh, who is dead in previously instituted case, Subhas, Deewan Singh, Rahul, Virendra Singh and Satya Kishore, with this contention that on same date 9.6.2016, while informant was on his way to Auraiya and reached near Jaruhuliya ki madaiya tiraha, at about 3:20 P.M., two motorcycle ridden miscreants Ram Singh and his brother-in-law Subhas, Diwan Singh, Rahul, Virendra Singh and Satya Kishore did intercept. These motorcycle riders, under joint mensrea, under threat of death, did assault regarding their dispute regarding field. These motorcycle riders, under joint mensrea, under threat of death, did assault regarding their dispute regarding field. Ram Singh caught hold informant and Diwan Singh did firearm shot over him, resulting its injury over abdomen. He was severely injured. Many persons rushed thereat wherein Sahveer @ Sanju and Yaduveer, was there, who took injured at Government Hospital Chichauli, Auraiya. Those persons who were shepherd and rushed thereat, chased assailants. This injured was referred to Kanpur where he was admitted in Chandni Nursing Home, Kanpur. This report was got submitted. In the investigation of this case crime number, a final report was submitted. This was referred back and for repeated times, final report was submitted. Even opinion of Joint Director of Prosecution was taken wherein submission of final report was said to be on the basis of evidence on record. It was a material fact that at the time of admission at Chandni Nursing Home, injury was said to be caused by Ram Singh, who had died and it was never said to be caused by Diwan Singh. Hence, this final report was protested by complainant in formant Balbeer Singh, wherein, statement of Balbeer Singh was got recorded under Section 200 and his witnesses were examined under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. Whereupon, impugned summoning order was passed but no discussion of reason for this summoning was there. Because final report was submitted, after investigation of above case crime number, and it was based on the evidence collected by I.O. wherein the mention of Chandni Nursing Home, was there that the firearm shot was given by Ram Singh, resulting injury to Balbeer Singh, for which he was admitted thereat and this Ram Singh had died. But in a mechanical way, without application of judicial mind, impugned summoning order was passed by Magistrate and it was misuse of process of Court. Hence, this proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing impugned summoning order with entire proceeding of above case, for ensuring end of justice. 3. Learned AGA, as well as learned counsel for the complainant, has vehemently opposed the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicants with this contention that the sole basis of submission of final report was the mention at Chandni Nursing Home. But this was not by injured Balbeer, who is complainant in this case. 3. Learned AGA, as well as learned counsel for the complainant, has vehemently opposed the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicants with this contention that the sole basis of submission of final report was the mention at Chandni Nursing Home. But this was not by injured Balbeer, who is complainant in this case. Admittedly, Balbeer Singh was having injury over abdomen by firearm shot, for which instant medico legal report is there on record. Death of Ram Singh was owing to assault made by lathi-danda, for which explanation was given in the FIR, got lodged by the Balbeer Singh, that it was shepherd persons, present on spot, who chased those assailants Ram Singh and Ashish and who assaulted them. But for Balbeer Singh, it was categorically said by him that assault of firearm shot was extended by Badan Singh wherein Ram Singh had caught hold. This facts was reiterated by statement of Akhilesh Singh, under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. as well as other witnesses, who were present on spot and who took injured at District Hospital Auraiya, from there to Chandni Nursing Home, Kanpur. They all narrated the same sequence as was said by injured complainant and in this case he was the best witness who has narrated the same fact and on the basis of this evidence collected by Magistrate, under its own inquiry made under Section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C., impugned summoning order was passed, which was well founded and the previous order of rejection of final report, thereby, registration of complaint case was not challenged by applicants at any stage. This too, was a confirm order and once Magistrate took cognizance as a complaint case, decided to make inquiry by itself. Then after, passed impugned summoning order and then the basis of summoning is the inquiry made by Magistrate and it never requires that previous evidence collected by I.O. For submission of final report is to be discussed by Magistrate. Moreso, there are repeated precedents of this Court as well as Apex Court that at the time of passing of summoning order application of judicial mind is to be there but need not be elaborate analytical discussion. Rather a prima facie is to be seen and this was very well there. Hence, this application be rejected. 4. Moreso, there are repeated precedents of this Court as well as Apex Court that at the time of passing of summoning order application of judicial mind is to be there but need not be elaborate analytical discussion. Rather a prima facie is to be seen and this was very well there. Hence, this application be rejected. 4. Having heard learned counsels for both sides and gone through the material placed on record, it is apparent that the mention at Chandni Nursing Home, was not by injured, rather it was said to be by family members and had apprised that it was firearm shot given by Ram Singh i.e. a vague mention was there and purpose of this mention was just to inform police for taking criminal law in motion. it was not a decision making mention nor it was made by injured Balbeer. But after gaining sense and being settled at Chandni Nursing Home, this Balbeer got First Information Report lodged as case crime number wherein narration was made by him with the same contention as was said by him in his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. in inquiry made by Magistrate. Hence, injured Balbeer Singh complainant-informant is fully intact in his statement recorded during investigation by I.O. in case crime number as well as inquiry made by Magistrate wherein, the contention of this report as well as protest petition was fully intact. 5. In First Information Report got lodged by Smt. Gyanwati Devi, the presence of two witnesses on spot was said. She herself was not eye-witness account and as per her statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., it was only two persons present on spot when they were assaulted by those accused persons. They were Ram Singh and Ashish whereas Ashish ran from spot for saving his life. Hence, statement of Ashish was relevant wherein, he has said about this occurrence with this contention that none other than accused persons and deceased Ram Singh and injured Ashish was there. It was upon the rescue call, many other shepherd has rushed on spot. Hence, the informant was not eye-witness account and was of no avail to narrate the occurrence. But what was heard by her, was narrated. It was upon the rescue call, many other shepherd has rushed on spot. Hence, the informant was not eye-witness account and was of no avail to narrate the occurrence. But what was heard by her, was narrated. But, no recital regarding injury of firearm shot over Balbeer Singh nor Balbeer was made as an accused in it, though, name of Badan Singh is there and Balbeer Sigh is Balbeer Singh @ Badan Singh. But the injured witness on record was Balbeer Singh complainant, who in his statement has narrated the occurrence. Hence, the mention made at Chandni Nursing Home was not by Balbeer Singh. Balbeer Singh was instantly taken to hospital where he was having firearm injury over his abdomen. He was instantly taken to Chandni Nursing Home. The occurrence is one and common. One case is running for offence of murder as well as attempt to murder and this second offence for the same occurrence has been initiated by way of summoning as above, for which apparently prima facie, there was sufficient evidence on record and the impugned order was passed on the basis of it, there was no abuse of process of Court or frustration of end of justice. This Court, in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not expected to embark upon the aspects of factual evidence, which is a question of trial. Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gaurishetty Mahesh, JT 2010 (6) SC 588: (2010) 6 SCALE 767 : 2010 Cr. LJ 3844 has propounded that "While exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable apprehension of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge/Court". In another subsequent Hamida v. Rashid, (2008) 1 SCC 474 , hon'ble Apex Court propounded that "Ends of justice would be better served if valuable time of the Court is spent in hearing those appeals rather than entertaining petitions under Section 482 at an interlocutory stage which after filed with some oblique motive in order to circumvent the prescribed procedure, or to delay the trial which enable to win over the witness or may disinterested in giving evidence, ultimately resulting in miscarriage of Justice". In again another subsequent Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 8 SCC 781 , the Apex Court has propounded "Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself." While interpreting this jurisdiction of High Court Apex Court in Popular Muthiah v. State, Represented by Inspector of Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296 has propounded "High Court can exercise jurisdiction suo motu in the interest of justice. It can do so while exercising other jurisdictions such as appellate or revisional jurisdiction. No formal application for invoking inherent jurisdiction is necessary. Inherent jurisdiction can be exercised in respect of substantive as well as procedural matters. It can as well be exercised in respect of incidental or supplemental power irrespective of nature of proceedings". Regarding prevention of abuse of process of Court, Apex Court in Dhanlakshmi v. R.Prasana Kumar, (1990) Cr LJ 320 (DB): AIR 1990 SC 494 has propounded "To prevent abuse of the process of the Court, High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under section 482 could quash the proceedings but there would be justification for interference only when the complaint did not disclose any offence or was frivolous vexatious or oppressive" as well as in State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan, (1989) Cr LJ 1005: AIR 1989 SC 1 , Apex Court propounded "In exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 High Court would not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not". 6. Meaning thereby, exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is within the limits, propounded as above. Hence, this application merits is dismissal. 7. Accordingly, dismissed. 8. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 9. However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days and no more from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. Till then no coercive measures shall be taken against the applicants. 10. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.