JUDGMENT : (Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.) 1. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Has been moved by the accused-applicants of Crl. Complaint Case No. 523 of 2019 (State Vs. Ravikant and Others) u/s 323, 354, 504 and 506 I.P.C. Police Station-Khurja Dehat, District-Bulandshahar. 2. In brief, facts of the case are that opposite party no. 2 Smt. Kripa Devi moved an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the applicants regarding the incident dated 16.2.2017 to lodge the F.I.R. against the applicants which was allowed and an F.I.R. had been lodged at Crime No. 176 of 2017 under Section 147, 452, 354 B, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. P.S. Khurja Dehat, Bulandshahar, with the allegations that on 16.2.2017 at about 6:00 p.m. when the complainant went to the back side of her house for feeding to her cattle, the applicants entered her house, molested her and also assaulted her family members due to which they sustained injuries. 3. The police started investigation, recorded the statement of the informant and other witnesses such as Kallu, Triloki, Brahmpal, Bholaram, Ashok, Pushpa Devi and Devendra. 4. The I.O., Munna Lal Sagar, submitted final report concluding that the contents of the F.I.R. were not correct and the F.I.R. was lodged only to pressurize the applicants but the higher officials ordered for further investigation which was conducted by S.I. Awadhesh Kumar who again finding the allegations false, submitted final report before A.C.J.M. Khurja which was registered as F.R.No. 322 of 2017 on 27.5.2017. 5. The learned A.C.J.M. after perusal of the record accepted the final report on 20.11.2018 but the order of the learned A.C.J.M. was challenged by opposite party no.2 by filing Crl. Revision No. 436 of 2018 (Smt. Kripa Devi Vs. State of U.P. And 5 Others) which was allowed on 6.4.2019 by Additional Sessions Judge, Khurja, Bulandshahar, and the learned Magistrate was directed to decide the final report afresh in the light of the judgment of the revisional Court. 6. In compliance of the order of the revisional Court, the protest petition was treated as complaint case and opposite party no. 2, Smt. Kripa Devi, was examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and Anil Kumar and Jallu were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Considering the evidence of the witnesses and allegations levelled against the applicants, they were summoned vide order dated 12/20.10.2021 as accused for appearance on 22.11.2021. 7. 2, Smt. Kripa Devi, was examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and Anil Kumar and Jallu were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Considering the evidence of the witnesses and allegations levelled against the applicants, they were summoned vide order dated 12/20.10.2021 as accused for appearance on 22.11.2021. 7. Being aggrieved, the impugned order dated 12/20.10.2021 has been challenged on the grounds that Manoj, husband of opposite party no.2 and his family members brutally assaulted applicant no.1, Ravikant and caused serious injuries to him for which applicant no. 4 Ratibhan, father of Ravikant, applicant no. 1 lodged F.I.R. against them at Crime No. 58 of 2017 under Section 147, 148, 149, 342, 308, 323 and 325 I.P.C. in which after submission of charge-sheet S.T. No. 219 of 2017 (State Vs. Manoj and Others) was started and the charges have been framed. In the aforesaid case, the applicants are witnesses. After that opposite party no.2 tried to initiate false and fabricated prosecution against the applicants by moving application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. with an unexplained delay of two months. 8. It is pertinent to mention that Dalchand, father-in-law of opposite party no.2 who is one of the accused of Crime No. 58 of 2018, lodged an F.I.R. at Crime No. 353 of 2015 against the unknown persons in which final report has been submitted against which Dalchand moved protest petition on 9.7.2018 in which he first time said that the applicants Ravikant, Vijayveer and one Yashwant were involved in the said offence and the learned Magistrate summoned them as accused on 16.10.2018 under Section 308 and 506 I.P.C. which was challenged by the applicant Ravikant before the High Court in Criminal Misc. Application U.S 482 No. 21664 of 2019 and the proceeding of the impugned case was stayed which was extended time to time. 9. On the instigation of the family members of the opposite party no. 2, another case has been falsely lodged against the applicant Vijayveer alias Ankit at Crime No. 271 of 2018 on 5.10.2018 under Section 376 I.P.C. in which the High Court granted bail to him vide order dated 3.4.2019. 10. There was no material available on record to indicate that opposite party no.2 or her family members sustained any injury and in absence of any injury, it is clearly established that the applicants were falsely implicated in the present case. 10. There was no material available on record to indicate that opposite party no.2 or her family members sustained any injury and in absence of any injury, it is clearly established that the applicants were falsely implicated in the present case. It is also pertinent to mention that in Case Crime No. 271 of 2018 u/s 376 I.P.C., the applicant Vijayveej has been acquitted vide judgment and order dated 25.11.2020. The applicants have no criminal antecedents, they have falsely been implicated in the present case for ulterior motive hence the entire proceeding and the impugned summoning order be quashed. 11. All the records referred in the application have been annexed with the Affidavit filed in support of the application. 12. Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Vibhu Rai and Ankit Shukla, Advocates, for the applicants Sri Pandey Balkrishna learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 13. It is case of opposite party no.2 that when she was feeding the cattle in the backyard of her house, accused persons committed the alleged occurrence and disrobed her and compelled her to be naked. It is noteworthy that in the F.I.R lodged by opposite party no.2, the applicant no.1 Ravikant is accused no.1. This point appears to be key point of both the cases as to how Ravikant was found in the Gher of opposite party no.2. According to opposite party no.2, when Ravikant alongwith other accused persons molested her and torn her clothes and when she called her family members, her husband and brother in-laws Mahesh and Bablu reached there. Seeing them except Ravikant, rest accused persons succeeded in escaping and Ravikant was caught hold by her husband, then accused person reached there with stick and lathi and started beating her husband and brother in-laws. Hearing the noise, villagers Anil and Jallu reached there and saved them. 14. Contrary to that it is allegation of the applicants that Ravikant was taken to the Gher of opposite party no.2 where he was severely assaulted by which several grievous and fatal injuries were caused to him. 15. It is nowhere mentioned in the F.I.R. lodged by the applicants that on which reason, the accused had taken Ravikant to their Gher. No motive or reason has been assigned by the applicants for it. 15. It is nowhere mentioned in the F.I.R. lodged by the applicants that on which reason, the accused had taken Ravikant to their Gher. No motive or reason has been assigned by the applicants for it. At this point learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. contended that if Ravikant would have been taken forcefully from his house to the Gher of opposite party no.2, the occurrence would have taken place at the house of Ravikant, not in the Gher of opposite party no.2. Ravikant was not a child, ill or sick person that he could be easily taken away by the family members of the opposite party no.2. Their argument is that virtually the facts of the F.I.R. of the applicants do not contain correct facts of the case as Ravikant with other accused persons committed the alleged crime against opposite party no.2 and when it came into the knowledge of the family members of opposite party no.2, they tried to save the dignity and honour of opposite party no.2 and in such a situation, seeing the nature and gravity of the alleged crime, family members of opposite party no. 2 also used force in their defence. Hence, some injuries would have been sustained by Ravikant. It does not mean that in the aforesaid circumstances, if the applicants side received more and severe injuries than the side of opposite party no.2, it can be said that the family members of opposite party no.2 were the assailants or they exceeded the limit of private defence. It could only be decided during the course of trial. It is also a matter of concern as to why only Ravikant was caught hold and rest are said to be escaped. In this regard, if fact of the case of opposite party no.2 is scrutinized, the fair picture appears that Ravikant had been caught hold by the family members of the victim, opposite party no.2 on account of the impugned alleged occurrence. 16. It is noteworthy that it is not a case where an F.I.R. about any past incident had been lodged from the side of opposite party no.2. Both the F.I.Rs. have been lodged about the offence alleged to have been occurred on the same date, place and time. 16. It is noteworthy that it is not a case where an F.I.R. about any past incident had been lodged from the side of opposite party no.2. Both the F.I.Rs. have been lodged about the offence alleged to have been occurred on the same date, place and time. In such a situation, it can only be decided after taking evidence during the trial as to which party was the aggressor and right culprit and which party acted in defence and which party started the commission of crime about which both the parties have lodged the F.I.R. 17. A very common but serious charge has been levelled from the side of opposite party no. 2 that since the brother of Vijayveer is in police service hence in spite of best efforts from the side of opposite party no.2, their F.I.R. could not be lodged and when the police was directed to lodge the F.I.R. under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., both the I.O. tried to save the family members of the said police personnel and submitted final report. So far as this allegation is concerned, normally no evidence can be produced in this regard but it is again noteworthy that the applicants have not denied that brother of the applicant accused Vijayveer is not in police service. Since no adverse presumption can be drawn in accordance with law, hence, no such presumption is drawn by the Trial Court or this Court but it is open for the side of opposite party no.2 to adduce evidence that the denial from lodging the F.I.R. and submission of final report was the result of unfair practice. 18. Learned counsel for the applicants has relied on the following rulings' (a) In Pepsi Food Ltd. And Other Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others, (1998) 5 SCC 749 , it has been held that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. The magistrate should examine the nature of allegations, the oral and documentary evidence. He should not act as silent spectator, he has to scrutinize the evidence carefully and may himself put question to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations and to examine as to whether any primafacie case of commission of crime by the accused is made out or not. He should not act as silent spectator, he has to scrutinize the evidence carefully and may himself put question to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations and to examine as to whether any primafacie case of commission of crime by the accused is made out or not. On the basis of above discussion this Court is of the view that the principles laid down in this precedent do not apply in favour of the applicants. (b) Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. C.B.I., (2015) 4 SCC 609 ; M/s G.H.C.L. Employees Stock Option Trust Vs. M/s India Infoline Ltd., AIR 2013 SC 1433 ; Lallan Kumar Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2022 Livelaw (SC) 833. In first case the matter was remanded to the Magistrate and in all the cases it was held that Magistrate must duly apply his mind to form and record an opinion that there is sufficient basis for proceeding through the order though there is no need to pass a detailed order. In first three above citations the matter was in respect of commission of economic offences. (c) In Krishna Lal Chawla and Others Vs. State of U.P. And Others, Manu/SC/0161/2021, there was matrimonial dispute between the wife and the husband and F.I.R. had been lodged by both the parties against each other, both were living separately. The Apex Court was of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending, hence the F.I.R. and the entire criminal proceedings were quashed. Here the facts are quite different. Hence the principles laid down in this precedent can not be applied in favour of the applicants. (d) In Vineet Kumar and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, Manu/SC/0351/2017, the accused were summoned under Section 452, 376 D and 323 IPC and revision against the summoning order was dismissed, hence the appeal was preferred. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case the appeal was allowed by the Apex Court considering the fact that there were financial transaction between the accused and the complainant, her husband and son, and on dishonourment of cheque issued by the complainant's husband and son, proceeding under Section 138 N.I. Act were already initiated by the accused. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case the appeal was allowed by the Apex Court considering the fact that there were financial transaction between the accused and the complainant, her husband and son, and on dishonourment of cheque issued by the complainant's husband and son, proceeding under Section 138 N.I. Act were already initiated by the accused. There was nothing on record except the bald allegation of the victim, hence the appeal was allowed and the entire criminal proceedings were quashed. The facts of this case are quite different even it is not denied by the applicants that any occurrence had not taken place on the alleged date, time and place. (e) In Sundar Babu and Others Vs. State of Tamilnadu (2009) 14 SCC 244 , the dispute was matrimonial in nature u/s 498-A and Section 4 D.P. Act, 1961, the Apex Court found that the proceedings were malafidy and it was maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. In this case the facts and evidence are quite different, hence, this precedent is not applicable in favour of the applicants. (f) In Ahmad Ali Quraishi and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2020) 13 SCC 435 , the complaint was found to be malafide and animus in nature due to animosity arising out of partition of family properties. In this case facts are quite different and the principles laid down in this case do not apply in favour of the applicants. (g) In M.N. Ojha and Others Vs. A.K. Srivastava and Another, (2009) 9 SCC 682 , the complaint was found to be as counter blast to the action taken by the appellants in their official capacity for realizing the loan amount due against the complainant. Facts of this case are totally different from the facts of the cited case. Hence, due to difference of facts and circumstances of both the cases, this ruling can not be applied in favour of the applicants. 19. On the basis of above discussion, this Court is of the view that an offence took place on the same date, time and place for which both the parties have initiated criminal proceedings. The truth would appear only after appraisal of the evidence. 19. On the basis of above discussion, this Court is of the view that an offence took place on the same date, time and place for which both the parties have initiated criminal proceedings. The truth would appear only after appraisal of the evidence. It does not appear that the impugned criminal proceeding initiated on behalf of opposite party no.2 is an abuse of process of Court. The grounds taken by applicants are not sufficient to throw away the case of opposite party no.2. By quashing the impugned criminal proceedings, no useful purpose would be served. Let the truth prevail after completion of trial. 20. Thus this Court is of the view that the present application is devoid of merits and is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be dismissed. Order The present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed without prejudice to the merit of the case.