Allahabad High Court
Onkareshwar Mishra (In Complaint ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 6 October, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:61144
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8211 of 2025
Onkareshwar Mishra (In Complaint Sudhanshu @ Onkar Mishra) And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Ramakar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 11
HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
1. Heard Shri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri S.P. Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for the following main relief(s):-
"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned summoning order dated 31.05.2024 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-II/J.M, Faizabad in Complaint Case No. 2114/2024 "Mahesh Chandra Shukla Vs. Sudhanshu @ Onkar & others "Under Section 323, 325 IPC, Police Station Rudauli, District Ayodhya and the judgment and order dated 28.05.2025 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, FTC-II/Ayodhya in Crl. Revision No. 176/2024 "Sudhanshu@ Onkar Mishra & others Vs. State of U.P. & another" in the ends of justice."
3. Aforesaid relief (s) has been sought by alleging that the case of the applicants is squarely covered by paragraph 102 (7) of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 at page 378. The paragraph 102 is extracted herein under :-
102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is 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." 4. In regard to the aforesaid ground, the following facts have been pointed out before this Court :-
(i) An F.I.R. was lodged by the opposite party No.2 on 14.03.2020, which was registered as F.I.R./Case Crime No.0080/2020 at Police Station - Kotwali Rudauli, District - FAizabad (now Ayodhya) and in view of the allegations leveled therein the same was lodged under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325 I.P.C. against Sudhanshu @ Onkar Mishra, Badri Prasad Mishra and Dharmendra Awasthi.
(ii) According to the aforesaid F.I.R., the applicants assaulted the opposite party No.2, who is the father-in-law of the sister of the applicants, aged about 66 years, on 19th January, 2020 at about 9.00 A.M. at the agricultural field of the opposite party No.2, situated at Village - Sarai Mugal, H/o Sipaah Bhatt, Police Station - Kotwali Rudauli, District - Ayodhya.
(iii) The opposite party No.2 was medically examined on 21.01.2020 at District Hospital, Faizabad. According to the injury/medico legal report, annexed as Annexure No.11 to the present application, the opposite party No.2 sustained following injuries :-
"Examined Mahesh Chandra, aged about 66 years, Male, S/o Sri Deddutt Shukla, R/o Saraiya Mugal, Police Station Rudauli, District Ayodhya on 21.01.2020 at 12.05 p.m. at District Hospital, Faizabad.
Details of Injuries:
1. An abraded contusion size (7x6 cm) x reddish bluish in colour present on dorso lateral aspect of right lower forearm C wrist and hand. Tenderness found. Movement are restricted (KUO X-ray right forearm C hand AP < Let). Abrasion shown dry reddish brownish colour.
2. Mutliple Abrasion size about 4 x .5 cm, 6 x .5 cm (4.5 x.5) an reddish brownish dry scab present on lower back area.
3. C/o pain in knee right and Lt. forearm but no clinically visible injury seen.
It is conscious and oriented.
Nature of injury 1 is KUO, 2 is simple, 3 COP Duration 48 hours.
Caused by hard and blunt object for injury no.1. X-ray right forearm hand AP < let.
Refer for any test for expert radiological opinion."
(iv) The injury/medico legal report, aforesaid also indicates that the opposite party No.2 sustained injury about 48 hours before and the injuries could be sustained by the hard and blunt object and the same also indicates that the Medical Officer concerned also referred for radiological opinion.
(v) The Investigating Officer (in short "I.O.") thereafter submitted the final report No.1 dated 01.06.2020.
(vi) It is to be noted, at this stage, that before the I.O. the injured-opposite party No.2 narrated the story as narrated in the F.I.R., which is evident from the copy of the statement of the injured-opposite party No.2 recorded by the I.O. in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C.
(vii) According to the statement of the injured-opposite party No.2, copy of which is annexed as Annexure No.4 to the present application, the applicants assaulted the injured-opposite party No. 2 on 19.01.2020 at about 9.00 A.M. at agricultural field situated at Village - Sarai Mugal, H/o Sipaah Bhatt, Police Station - Kotwali Rudauli, District - Ayodhya.
(viii) The statement of the injured-opposite party No.2 also indicates that he was medically examined at District Hospital on 21.01.2020.
(ix) On receipt of notice, protest application was filed. According to the protest application, particularly paragraphs 2 and 4, the injured - opposite party No.2 was assaulted by the applicants on 19.01.2020 at 9.00 A.M. at agricultural field situated at Village - Sarai Mugal, H/o Sipaah Bhatt, Police Station - Kotwali Rudauli, District - Ayodhya.
(x) It is also to be noted that the order of the Magistrate for further investigation dated 16.03.2021 has not been placed on record for the reasons best known to the counsel for the applicants though it ought to have been brought on record.
(xi) It appears that after considering the contents of the F.I.R., statement of the injured-opposite party No.2 recorded by the I.O. under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as also the injury/medico legal report of opposite party No.2 and the law on the issue, according to which the evidence/testimony of the injured witnesses has greater evidentiary value and unless exceptional circumstances exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly [See : State of M.P. vs. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414; Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719; Balraje @ Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673; Abdul Sayeed vs. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259; State of U.P. vs. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324; Laxman Singh vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) (2021) 9 SCC 191; Balu Sudam Khalde and another vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 355)], the Magistrate concerned directed the I.O. to further investigate the matter vide order dated 16.03.2021, copy of which has not been annexed as stated herein above.
(xii) The I.O. thereafter again submitted the final report No.B-24A/21, dated 23.11.2021.
(xiii) After the aforesaid final report, protest application dated 29.06.2022 was filed by injured-opposite party No.2, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No.8, a perusal of paragraphs 2 and 4 of the protest application dated 29.06.2022 filed by the injured-opposite party No.2 indicates that the opposite party No.2 remained intact with regard to date, time and place of the incident as was indicated by the injured-opposite party No.2 in the F.I.R. according to which the injured-opposite party No.2 was assaulted at about 9.00 A.M. at agricultural field situated at Village - Sarai Mugal, H/o Sipaah Bhatt, Police Station - Kotwali Rudauli, District - Ayodhya.
(xiv) Thereafter the statement of the injured-opposite party No.2 was recorded before the Magistrate concerned under Section 200 Cr.P.C. on 23.05.2023.
(xv) Before the Magistrate concerned, the injured - opposite party No.2 indicated the date of incident as 01.01.2019, as appears from the copy of the statement of the injured-opposite party No.2 placed on record as Annexure No.9 at page 71 of the paper book.
(xvi) It is to be noted that on account of matrimonial discord, the following cases between the parties are pending :-
(a) Criminal case arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No.0228/2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 325 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act, at Police Station Shivratanganj, District - Amethi registered on 25.11.2019.
(b) Criminal Case arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0080/2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325 I.P.C., at Police Station - Kotwali Rudauli, District-Ayodhya.
(c) Case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance by the daughter-in-law of the opposite party no.2.
5. In the aforesaid background of the case, the present application has been filed.
6. For the purposes of causing interference, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that (i) there is discrepancy with regard to the date of incident as in the complaint/protest application dated 29.06.2022 filed by injured-opposite party No.2 the date of incident is mentioned as 19.01.2020 and according to the statement of the injured- opposite party No.2 recorded before the Magistrate concerned under Section 200 Cr.P.C. the incident occurred on 01.01.2019 and therefore case of the injured-opposite party No.2 is concocted, (ii) the proceedings arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.0080/2020 in issue is abuse of process of law for the reason that the FIR was lodged only to pressurize the family of the applicants in relation to matrimonial dispute between sister of the applicants and son of the injured-opposite party No.2.
7. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application.
8. Considered the aforesaid and perused the record.
9. This court is not impressed with the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants. It is for the following reasons :-
(i) The opposite party No.2, who is injured witness, has leveled specific allegations with regard to the date, time and place of the incident, as indicated in the F.I.R./Case Crime No.0080 of 2020, in the statement recorded by I.O. in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C. as also before the Magistrate, in the first protest application as also in the second protest application and also that according to injury/medico legal report of injured-opposite party No.2 dated 21.01.2020 the injuries could be sustained by him 48 hours before, which indicates that the incident took place on the date as mentioned in the F.I.R. i.e. 19.01.2020.
(ii) The testimony of the injured witnesses has greater evidentiary value and unless exceptional circumstances exist their statements are not to be discarded lightly [See : State of M.P. vs. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414; Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719; Balraje @ Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673; Abdul Sayeed vs. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259; State of U.P. vs. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324; Laxman Singh vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) (2021) 9 SCC 191; Balu Sudam Khalde and another vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 355)] and in the instant case the Magistrate while recording the statement of injured-opposite party No.2 has mentioned the date of incident as 01.01.2019, which could be inadvertently.
(iii) The Magistrate concerned, taking note of the aforesaid earlier had directed the I.O. to investigate the matter.10. For the reasons, aforesaid, this court finds no force in the revision. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Saurabh Lavania,J.)
October 6, 2025
ML/-
