Singh vs The State of U.P and Anr. ....Respondents.

: Santosh Kumar Srivastava, Shiv Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Govt. Advocate, Pramod Kumar Singh Along with : 1. Application U/s 482 No. 1601 of 2015: Ram Pal and Ors. .....Applicants. Versus The State of U.P and Anr. ....Respondents. Court No. - 23 HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.

1. Both these applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed challenging the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4201 of 2010 (Ram Palat vs. Tribhuwan and others) under Sections 323, 352, 392, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Jaitpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, pending before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar, including the summoning order dated 16.12.2010, as well as the revisional order dated

21.06.2013 passed in Criminal Revision No.7 of 2011.

2. Since both applications arise out of the same complaint and identical facts, they are being decided by this common order.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have a longstanding dispute regarding the demarcation of agricultural land. Proceedings under Section 28 2 A482 No. 6859 of 2013 of the Land Revenue Act culminated by order dated 28.02.1995 passed by the A.D.M. (Protocol), Faizabad. Thereafter, on an application moved by Satya Dev, father of one of the accused, a fresh demarcation was conducted in 2010 under Section 41 of the Land Revenue Act, wherein it was found that respondent no. 2 had encroached upon Gata No.2. It is stated that on 09.07.2010 the illegal encroachment was removed in the presence of villagers and revenue officials.

4. The present complaint was filed thereafter alleging incidents dated 07.07.2010 and

10.07.2010, which, according to the applicants, were fabricated to counter the demarcation proceedings that went against respondent no. 2.

5. It is further submitted that the allegations in the complaint are inherently improbable. The medical injuries were procured after an unexplained delay of two days. In the civil suit filed by respondent no.2 (O.S. No. 419 of 2010), no allegation of assault or injury was made, indicating that the present criminal proceedings are a retaliatory measure and an abuse of the process of law.

6. Learned counsel further contends that the summoning order dated 16.12.2010 does not reflect any application of judicial mind to the material facts namely, the land dispute, the timing of the demarcation, contradictions between civil and criminal proceedings, delay in medical evidence, or absence of independent witnesses.

7. It is argued that since at the stage of summoning in a complaint case the accused has no right of hearing, the Magistrate must carefully scrutinize the material. Reference is made to the legislative recognition of this principle in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ”B.N.S.S”.), which introduces a right of hearing prior to issuance of process.

8. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2, however, submits that specific allegations of trespass, assault, and robbery have been made; statements under Sections 200 and 202 3 A482 No. 6859 of 2013 Cr.P.C. were duly recorded; and the Magistrate, upon satisfaction, rightly issued summons, which was affirmed by the revisional court.

9. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy vs. Sudha Seetharam, (2019) 16 SCC 739, and Anand Kumar Mohatta vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 11 SCC 706, to submit that the High Court ought to intervene where civil disputes are given a criminal colour with mala fide intention.

10. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 24.09.2025 in Ankul Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, Criminal Appeal No. 4250 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2682 of 2020).

11. This Court is conscious that its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is limited. However, when the summoning order does not reflect consideration of material facts, civil background, or statutory requirements, the High Court may direct reconsideration, as laid down in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chandra : AIR Online 2012 SC 668: , State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another : 2005 SCC (Cri.)283.

12. In the present case, the demarcation proceedings of 2010 are undisputed and contemporaneous. The civil pleadings filed by the complainant make no reference to any assault or injury. The medical evidence is delayed without explanation. The summoning order dated 16.12.2010 does not reflect consideration of these critical aspects, nor does it indicate why reliance was placed solely on interested witnesses.

13. The revisional court also failed to examine these material issues. At the summoning stage, the accused has no opportunity to produce material, which casts a heavier duty on the Magistrate to undertake careful scrutiny. 4 A482 No. 6859 of 2013

14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 749, para 28 has held as under :- “Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. it is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused”.

15. The Court further notes that although the provisions of the B.N.S.S., 2023 are prospective, the legislative intent reflected therein underscores the need for deeper scrutiny before issuance of process.

16. In the present case, the summoning order is cryptic and does not demonstrate consideration of delay in medical evidence or absence of independent witnesses. These omissions go to the very root of the summoning process.

17. While this Court refrains from adjudicating disputed questions of fact or from quashing the proceedings altogether, the interests of justice require that the matter be reconsidered afresh.

18. Accordingly, the summoning order dated 16.12.2010 and the revisional order dated 21.06.2013 are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar, who shall reconsider the complaint, statements 5 A482 No. 6859 of 2013 under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., medical evidence, and civil pleadings; apply judicial mind to the land dispute and demarcation proceedings; and pass a fresh, reasoned order on the question of cognizance/ summoning strictly in accordance with law.

19. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations. The Magistrate shall decide the matter independently and uninfluenced by any observations made herein.

20. Both the applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are accordingly disposed of. November 28, 2025 Shukla (Rajeev Bharti,J.) ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

: Santosh Kumar Srivastava, Shiv Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Govt. Advocate, Pramod Kumar Singh Along with : 1. Application U/s 482 No. 1601 of 2015: Ram Pal and Ors. .....Applicants. Versus The State of U.P and Anr. ....Respondents. Court No. - 23 HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.

1. Both these applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed challenging the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4201 of 2010 (Ram Palat vs. Tribhuwan and others) under Sections 323, 352, 392, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Jaitpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, pending before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar, including the summoning order dated 16.12.2010, as well as the revisional order dated

21.06.2013 passed in Criminal Revision No.7 of 2011.

2. Since both applications arise out of the same complaint and identical facts, they are being decided by this common order.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have a longstanding dispute regarding the demarcation of agricultural land. Proceedings under Section 28 2 A482 No. 6859 of 2013 of the Land Revenue Act culminated by order dated 28.02.1995 passed by the A.D.M. (Protocol), Faizabad. Thereafter, on an application moved by Satya Dev, father of one of the accused, a fresh demarcation was conducted in 2010 under Section 41 of the Land Revenue Act, wherein it was found that respondent no. 2 had encroached upon Gata No.2. It is stated that on 09.07.2010 the illegal encroachment was removed in the presence of villagers and revenue officials.

4. The present complaint was filed thereafter alleging incidents dated 07.07.2010 and

10.07.2010, which, according to the applicants, were fabricated to counter the demarcation proceedings that went against respondent no. 2.

5. It is further submitted that the allegations in the complaint are inherently improbable. The medical injuries were procured after an unexplained delay of two days. In the civil suit filed by respondent no.2 (O.S. No. 419 of 2010), no allegation of assault or injury was made, indicating that the present criminal proceedings are a retaliatory measure and an abuse of the process of law.

6. Learned counsel further contends that the summoning order dated 16.12.2010 does not reflect any application of judicial mind to the material facts namely, the land dispute, the timing of the demarcation, contradictions between civil and criminal proceedings, delay in medical evidence, or absence of independent witnesses.

7. It is argued that since at the stage of summoning in a complaint case the accused has no right of hearing, the Magistrate must carefully scrutinize the material. Reference is made to the legislative recognition of this principle in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ”B.N.S.S”.), which introduces a right of hearing prior to issuance of process.

8. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2, however, submits that specific allegations of trespass, assault, and robbery have been made; statements under Sections 200 and 202 3 A482 No. 6859 of 2013 Cr.P.C. were duly recorded; and the Magistrate, upon satisfaction, rightly issued summons, which was affirmed by the revisional court.

9. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy vs. Sudha Seetharam, (2019) 16 SCC 739, and Anand Kumar Mohatta vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 11 SCC 706, to submit that the High Court ought to intervene where civil disputes are given a criminal colour with mala fide intention.

10. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 24.09.2025 in Ankul Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, Criminal Appeal No. 4250 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2682 of 2020).

11. This Court is conscious that its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is limited. However, when the summoning order does not reflect consideration of material facts, civil background, or statutory requirements, the High Court may direct reconsideration, as laid down in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chandra : AIR Online 2012 SC 668: , State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another : 2005 SCC (Cri.)283.

12. In the present case, the demarcation proceedings of 2010 are undisputed and contemporaneous. The civil pleadings filed by the complainant make no reference to any assault or injury. The medical evidence is delayed without explanation. The summoning order dated 16.12.2010 does not reflect consideration of these critical aspects, nor does it indicate why reliance was placed solely on interested witnesses.

13. The revisional court also failed to examine these material issues. At the summoning stage, the accused has no opportunity to produce material, which casts a heavier duty on the Magistrate to undertake careful scrutiny. 4 A482 No. 6859 of 2013

14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 749, para 28 has held as under :- “Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. it is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused”.

15. The Court further notes that although the provisions of the B.N.S.S., 2023 are prospective, the legislative intent reflected therein underscores the need for deeper scrutiny before issuance of process.

16. In the present case, the summoning order is cryptic and does not demonstrate consideration of delay in medical evidence or absence of independent witnesses. These omissions go to the very root of the summoning process.

17. While this Court refrains from adjudicating disputed questions of fact or from quashing the proceedings altogether, the interests of justice require that the matter be reconsidered afresh.

18. Accordingly, the summoning order dated 16.12.2010 and the revisional order dated 21.06.2013 are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar, who shall reconsider the complaint, statements 5 A482 No. 6859 of 2013 under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., medical evidence, and civil pleadings; apply judicial mind to the land dispute and demarcation proceedings; and pass a fresh, reasoned order on the question of cognizance/ summoning strictly in accordance with law.

19. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations. The Magistrate shall decide the matter independently and uninfluenced by any observations made herein.

20. Both the applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are accordingly disposed of. November 28, 2025 Shukla (Rajeev Bharti,J.) ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench