JUDGMENT : (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.) 1. In the present case, on basis of alleged occurrence took place on 10.07.2016, complainant has lodged an NCR on 11.08.2016 i.e. about 1 month against Prakash, Manoj, Raja Babu and Bintu (applicants no. 1 to 3 and 6) for offence under Sections 323, 504, 427 IPC. 2. The complainant thereafter has filed an application under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. for investigation disclosing names of all six applicants and that they have committed offences under Sections 323, 504, 427 IPC wherein vide order dated 16.08.2016, a direction was passed for investigation. Consequently investigation was conducted on above referred NCR and a charge sheet was submitted on 03.01.2017 against above referred 4 applicants under Sections 323, 504, 427 IPC. 3. The trial Court considered above referred charge sheet as a complaint under provisions of Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. and summoned above referred 4 applicants under Sections 323, 504, 427 IPC vide order dated 18.03.2017. 4. Controversy involved in present case arose when before above referred charge sheet was filed on 03.01.2017, the complainant approached Court of a Magistrate by way of filing a criminal complaint on 17.09.2016 not only above referred 4 applicants but other two applicants (applicants no. 4 and 5) that they were involved in above referred occurrence allegedly took place on 10.07.2016 and have committed cognizable offence under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC. In complaint, factor of filing NCR was disclosed with an allegation that correct facts and name of all assailants were not correctly recorded. 5. In aforesaid complaint, learned Magistrate recorded statement of complainant and witnesses respectively under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. (on 09.12.2016, 21.01.2017 and 17.07.2018) and thereafter vide order dated 16.11.2018 passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. summoned all applicants to face trial for offence under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC. It would be relevant to refer here that statement of complainant Nawab Singh and witness Kunwar Singh were earlier recorded by police during investigation of NCR but this fact was not disclosed in their subsequent statement recorded in criminal complaint case as well as they have disclosed involvement of only 4 applicants therein. 6. It would be relevant to refer here that statement of complainant Nawab Singh and witness Kunwar Singh were earlier recorded by police during investigation of NCR but this fact was not disclosed in their subsequent statement recorded in criminal complaint case as well as they have disclosed involvement of only 4 applicants therein. 6. Applicants being aggrieved by above summoning order have filed a revision petition mainly on ground that on same occurrence, complainant has already filed an NCR wherein name of only 4 applicants were mentioned for committing non-cognizable offence, on which investigation was conducted and a charge sheet under non-cognizable offence against only 4 applicants was filed and which was treated as a complaint case and summons were issued. Aforesaid facts were suppressed at least during arguments and trial Court has also not taken endeavour to call a report on it and erroneously summoned the applicants. 7. In support of above grounds, Sri Rishi Bhushan Johari, Advocate holding brief of Sri Mayank Pratap Singh, learned counsel for applicants has placed reliance on Krishna Lal Chawla and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2021) 5 SCC 435 and Kapil Agarwal and others vs. Sanjay Sharma and others, (2021) 5 SCC 524 that filing of multiple complaints for similar alleged occurrence by improving earlier version, would be considered as abuse of process of law. 8. Sri Dharmendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for opposite party-2 and learned AGA for State have not disputed aforesaid facts on basis of record but they submitted that there is no legal bar in lodging NCR and complaint case on same occurrence and in such event, procedure prescribed under Section 210 Cr.P.C. would be applicable. 9. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 10. As referred above, it is not disputed that on basis of same occurrence, two proceedings were initiated, one arising out of charge sheet filed on basis of non-cognizable report wherein after investigation, a charge sheet was filed for non-cognizable offence and proceedings were commenced as per Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. and another on basis of a complaint case wherein after statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. summons were issued against all applicants for committing cognizable offence. 11. 11. Issue involved in present case has recently been considered by this Court in a judgment passed in the case of Prem Nath Mishra and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2024:AHC:124406 and relevant paragraphs thereof being relevant are quoted below: - “6. Sri Deepak Upadhyay, learned counsel for applicants has heavily placed reliance on Krishna Lal Chawla and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2021) 5 SCC 435 that on similar set of facts as well as on similar set of allegations, proceedings arising out of police report as well as proceedings of complaint case could not proceed together if they are instituting by misleading the Court and abusing its process of law only with a view to harass the helpless litigants and relevant paragraphs thereof are quoted below -: “23. As aforesaid, the trial courts and the Magistrates have an important role in curbing this injustice. They are the first lines of defence for both the integrity of the criminal justice system, and the harassed and distraught litigant. We are of the considered opinion that the trial courts have the power to not merely decide on acquittal or conviction of the accused person after the trial, but also the duty to nip frivolous litigations in the bud even before they reach the stage of trial by discharging the accused in fit cases. This would not only save judicial time that comes at the cost of public money, but would also protect the right to liberty that every person is entitled to under Article 21 of the Constitution. In this context, the trial Judges have as much, if not more, responsibility in safeguarding the fundamental rights of the citizens of India as the highest court of this land. 24. As recorded by us above, the present controversy poses a typical example of frivolous litigants abusing court process to achieve their mischievous ends. In the case before us, the Magistrate was aware of the significant delay in the filing of private complaint by Respondent 2, and of the material improvements from the earlier NCR No. 158 of 2012 which were made in the private complaint. It was incumbent on the Magistrate to examine any possibility of abuse of process of the court, make further enquiries, and dismiss the frivolous complaint at the outset after judicial application of mind. 25. It was incumbent on the Magistrate to examine any possibility of abuse of process of the court, make further enquiries, and dismiss the frivolous complaint at the outset after judicial application of mind. 25. However, this was not done — the Magistrate issued process against the appellants by order dated 4-4-2019, and this controversy has now reached this Court for disposal. 26. It is a settled canon of law that this Court has inherent powers to prevent the abuse of its own processes, that this Court shall not suffer a litigant utilising the institution of justice for unjust means. Thus, it would be only proper for this Court to deny any relief to a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice by coming to it with his unclean hands. Similarly, a litigant pursuing frivolous and vexatious proceedings cannot claim unlimited right upon court time and public money to achieve his ends. 27. This Court's inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do “complete justice” empowers us to give preference to equity and a justice-oriented approach over the strict rigours of procedural law (State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih [State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2014) 8 SCC 883 : (2014) 4 SCC (Civ) 657 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 154 : (2014) 3 SCC (L&S) 134] ). This Court has used this inherent power to quash criminal proceedings where the proceedings are instituted with an oblique motive, or on manufactured evidence (Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh [Monica Kumar v. State of U.P., (2008) 8 SCC 781 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 649] ). Other decisions have held that inherent powers of High Courts provided in Section 482 CrPC may be utilised to quash criminal proceedings instituted after great delay, or with vengeful or mala fide motives. (Sirajul v. State of Uttar Pradesh [Sirajul v. State of U.P., (2015) 9 SCC 201 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 749] ; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 : AIR 1992 SC 604 ] .) Thus, it is the constitutional duty of this Court to quash criminal proceedings that were instituted by misleading the court and abusing its processes of law, only with a view to harass the hapless litigants. 28. 28. In this Court's quest for complete justice, and to bring peace between the parties, who are fighting various litigations since 2006, we exercise our powers under Article 142 to quash all the litigations between the parties arising out of this incident.” 9. It is not much in dispute that on basis of alleged occurrence, complainant has first filed an NCR wherein after investigation, charge sheet was filed for non-cognizable offence and trial Court considered it to be a complaint case under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. and summons were issued to applicants for offence u/s 323 and 504 IPC. 10. After charge sheet was filed and before summons were issued, complainant has filed a criminal complaint disclosing facts of NCR that applicants have committed cognizable offence and trial Court vide impugned order, after considering statement u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. has summoned the applicants for offence u/s 323, 504, 506 and 452 IPC. 11. Court takes note of Krishna Lal Chawla (supra) that multiple proceedings on same set of facts could not be proceeded further and it could be quashed if they are attended with malafide and initiated only to harass accused persons. 12. In present case, there is no argument on behalf of learned counsel for applicants that impugned passed u/s 204 Cr.P.C. itself is illegal as no requisite reason was assigned that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against applicants as well as that it was not based on material available on record i.e. complaint, statement recorded u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Relevant part of impugned order has already been quoted in preceding paragraph. 13. In the present case, complainant has specifically stated about lodging of NCR in the complaint and essentially it was reason to file complaint since no FIR was lodged. The applicants have not brought on record before trial Court about factum of filing charge sheet for non-cognizable offence in pursuance of NCR and that it was treated as a complaint case under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. The conduct of complainant was bonafide and has no malice as he has come up with clean hands. 14. Legal error committed by trial Court is that despite being aware that an NCR was already lodged. 14. Legal error committed by trial Court is that despite being aware that an NCR was already lodged. No police report was summoned to ascertain outcome of NCR and facts thereof only on ground that on some set of allegations, both NCR/FIR and criminal complaint was filed, itself would not be a malafide approach rather the Court has to look into attending circumstances to ascertain whether it was a creature of malafide which is not evident in present case.” 12. In present case also, the learned Magistrate while passing an order under Section 204 Cr.P.C. was not aware about factum of filing of a charge sheet for non-cognizable offence in pursuance of an investigation conducted on NCR against 4 applicants and same has not been disclosed in statements of witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. though in the statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., complainant has disclosed about fact of lodging NCR with a contention that it was not rightly recorded. The advocate who has argued for summoning has also not disclosed status, though prior to impugned order, four applicants were summoned in complaint case (under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C.), possibly learned counsel was not properly instructed. For reference, order passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. on 16.11.2018 is quoted below -: 13. In present case, arguments were on legal issue and no argument was submitted that impugned order was legally incorrect on basis of statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and that there was no sufficient grounds to proceed. 14. The contents of above referred impugned order shows that learned Magistrate has absolutely not taken note of filing of NCR and its outcome as well as not taken step or endeavour to ascertain it. It is also apparent that before Revisional Court also, specific legal and factual issues were not properly raised. 15. 14. The contents of above referred impugned order shows that learned Magistrate has absolutely not taken note of filing of NCR and its outcome as well as not taken step or endeavour to ascertain it. It is also apparent that before Revisional Court also, specific legal and factual issues were not properly raised. 15. In aforesaid circumstances, orders dated 20.01.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No. 390 of 2023 (Prakash and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another) by learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh as well as summoning order dated 16.11.2018 passed by learned ACJM, Court-3, Aligarh in Complaint Case No 3240 of 2016 (Nawab Singh vs. Prakash Singh and others) under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC, Police Station-Harduaganj, District- Aligarh are hereby set aside and matter is remitted back to concerned Revisional Court to pass a fresh order after taking note of judgments of Krishna Lal Chawla (supra) and Kapil Agarwal (supra) as well as Prem Nath Mishra (supra) as well as record of Case No. 477/2017 (State vs. Prakash and others) u/s 323, 504, 427 IPC, Police Station-Harduaganj, District-Aligarh within 3 months after hearing the complainant only. 16. Application is, accordingly, disposed of. 17. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.