MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR,J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) This appeal arises out of final order and judgement of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (hereinafter, 'High Court') dated 28.09.2020, dismissing the Miscellaneous Petition No. 2561 of 2020 filed by Appellants herein praying for quashing of the following orders: (i) Order dated 4.04.2019 of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut (hereinafter, 'Magistrate') in Complaint Case No. 2943/2018, issuing summons against the Appellants; (ii) Order dated 13.01.2020 of the Ld. Additional District and Sessions Judge, Meerut (hereinafter, 'Sessions Judge') in Criminal Revision No.202/2019, dismissing the Appellants' revision application against the aforesaid summoning order.
(3.) The brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows: 3.1 The Appellants and Respondent No. 2 are neighbours. The genesis of the proceedings before us lies in a physical altercation that took place between the Appellants, and the Respondent No. 2 and his wife on 5.08.2012. While the occurrence of such an altercation is an admitted fact between the parties, the details thereof form the crux of this prolonged litigation. 3.2 On 5.08.2012, the Respondent No. 2 filed a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) No. 158/2012 against the Appellants alleging offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, 'IPC'). It was his case that the Appellants came to his house, beat him and his wife with iron rods, and threatened to kill them. 3.3 The son of Appellant No. 1 also filed information on 5.08.2012, which was registered as Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) No. 160/2012 with the Daurala Police Station, alleging offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506, IPC against the Respondent No. 2 and his wife. This Report counter-alleged that the Respondent No. 2 and his wife came to the Appellants' house, beat them up with wooden sticks and iron rods, and threatened to kill their family. 3.4 It seems that even prior to the alleged occurrences, there were disputes between the parties in 2006. A mutual settlement took place on 6.02.2006 by which Respondent No. 2 agreed to pay a penalty of Rs. 3,000/- to the Appellant No. 1. Subsequently, in another dispute, on 21.12.2013 the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,500/- on Appellant No. 4. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the parties have been at loggerheads from 2006 onwards. It appears that they have been fighting litigations on one pretext or the other since 2006. Though they were agriculturists and neighbours, peace did not prevail between them, which resulted in a number of cases being lodged by them against each other. 3.5 The Appellants filed an application under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, 'CrPC') before the Magistrate on 27.04.2017, almost 5 years after the alleged incident, seeking permission for the police to investigate NCR No. 160/2012. The learned Magistrate directed that NCR No. 160/2012 filed by the Appellants be registered as FIR in Crime No. 283/2017. Investigation was conducted, and on 17.09.2017 a charge sheet was filed against the Respondent No. 2 and his wife under Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506 of the IPC. Subsequently, the Magistrate framed charges against Respondent No. 2 and his wife. There is nothing on record to show that even a single witness has been examined till date, though charges were framed by the Magistrate long back. Thus, there has been considerable delay in these proceedings, during both the investigation and trial stages. 3.6 Being unsatisfied with the allegations made and charge sheet filed against him, the Respondent No. 2 instituted a fresh private complaint against the Appellants under Section 200 of CrPC in Complaint Case No. 2943 of 2018 in respect of the very incident that took place on 5.08.2012. This private complaint was filed only on 11.05.2018, that is about six years from the date of alleged incident. In the private complaint, not only new allegations were added but all allegations are wilder and different from the averments made in NCR No. 158/12, though the incident is the same as of 5.08.2012 and between the same parties. It may not be necessary for us to narrate the contents of the private complaint inasmuch as we find and have satisfied ourselves that the allegations made in the private complaint are absolute material improvements over the allegations in NCR No. 158/12. Among other things, not only three additional eye witnesses are inducted in the private complaint, but allegations of fraud, injury to bull, forging of affidavit, etc. which were not found in the 2012 complaint are also found in the private complaint. The private complaint for the first time mentions commission of offences under Section 429, IPC and Sections 10 and 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. It is an admitted fact that Appellant No. 4 had inflicted injury on Respondent No. 2's bull on 26.09.2011, for which Appellant No. 4 had voluntarily confessed and accepted penalty of Rs. 1,500 from the Magistrate as mentioned supra. Be that as it may, we see no reason why Respondent No. 2 chose to rehash this incident in the private complaint given that Appellant No. 4 has already been convicted for the offence, and it is of no relevance to the present case. Curiously, the Magistrate was pleased to issue process against the Appellants based on this vexatious private complaint, which came to be confirmed by the Learned Sessions Judge in the impugned order. The Learned Sessions Judge has thus not only misunderstood Section 200, CrPC and its scope but also made a new case in favour of Respondent No.2 by reading Section 506 Part II, IPC which is punishable by 7 years in the place of Section 506, IPC, probably only to bring the private complaint within the prescribed period of limitation under Section 468 CrPC. It is nobody's case that the offence under Section 506(II) has taken place, which means that the Courts took extra interest to improve the case of the respondent/complainant. This appeal is filed challenging both the orders of the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge in respect of issuance of process, as mentioned supra. ;