Allahabad High Court
Santram And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 October, 2024
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:170806 Court No. - 72 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36200 of 2024 Applicant :- Santram And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1.
2. Perused the record.
3. Applicants-Santram And 2 Others, who have been summoned by court below in Complaint Case No. 6842 of 2024 (Sanjay Vs. Santram and others) under Sections 452, 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Mohammadabad, District-Farrukhabad, have approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the summoning order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Farrukhabad in aforementioned complaint case as well as the entire proceedings of aforementioned complaint case, now pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Farrukhabad.
4. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection by submitting that since the applicants have been summoned by court below under Section 324 I.P.C., therefore, burden is upon the applicants to dislodge the injury sustained by the injured/complainant. Referring to the affidavit filed in support of present application, the learned A.G.A. submits that no attempt has been made by applicants to dislodge the same. In view of above, the learned A.G.A. thus concludes that injury sustained by complainant/opposite party-2 is admitted to accused/applicants. As such no interference is warranted by this Court in present application.
5. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the preliminary objection raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application is not only borne out from the record but further the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicants. As such, no interference is warranted by this Court in present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
7. As a result, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.
8. It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.10.2024 YK