Raj Kumar And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another

AFR
Reserved on 22.10.2026
Delivered on 27.10.2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/s 482 No. - 15553 of 2017
Raj Kumar and 4 others
…..Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and another
…..Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prabhat Kumar, Siddharth Niranjan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : B.n.singh, G.A., Pratibha Vohra
Court No. - 91
HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Rajesh Bohra,
learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This application under section 482 of CrPC, has been
preferred against the order dated 28.02.2017 passed by the learned
Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jalaun at Orai, in Complaint Case No.
11/2017 (Naresh Kumar Dohre v. Rajkumar and others), whereby
the applicants Rajkumar, Ram Swaroop, Smt. Gayatri Devi, Deepu
and Dalpat Singh were summoned to face trial under Sections 147,
148, 452, 323, 504, 324, 325 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.
3. The complainant, Naresh Kumar Dohre, belongs to the
Chamar caste, a Scheduled Caste, and is a resident of Village

2
A482 No. - 15553 of 2017
Gadhar, P.S. Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun. His case is that on
11.10.2013, at about 8:00 p.m., while he was at his house, the
applicants Rajkumar, Dalpat Singh, Smt. Gayatri Devi, Deepu and
Ram Swaroop came to his house armed with lathi, danda and axe.
Rajkumar is alleged to have abused him by his caste, asking how a
person of a low caste dared to answer him back, and to have said
that he should not go to his field. Upon the complainant replying
that the field lay vacant and many people passed through it, the
accused are alleged to have abused him further with caste-based and
filthy words, and to have exhorted each other to beat him. The
complainant ran towards his house. The accused chased him,
entered the house and assaulted him with lathi, danda and axe. His
wife Basanti and daughter-in-law Vindeshwari, who came to rescue
him, were also assaulted. The complainant and his wife sustained
serious injuries. Mohar Singh, Kishunlal, Bhagwan Singh, Raju and
others, attracted by the cries, saw the incident.
4. When the complainant approached the police station, his
report was not registered. Instead, it is alleged, he and others were
challaned under Section 151 Cr.P.C. He then moved an application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Jalaun, who by order dated 03.12.2013 directed
registration and investigation. Case Crime No. 3680/2013 was

3
A482 No. - 15553 of 2017
registered under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC and
Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.
5. The Investigating Officer submitted a final report dated
29.01.2014. The complainant filed a protest petition, which the
learned Court treated as a complaint. The complainant recorded his
statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and produced PW-1 Smt.
Vindeshwari, PW-2 Smt. Basanti, PW-3 Kishunlal, PW-4 Raju,
PW-5 Bhagwan Singh Yadav and PW-6 Surendra Yadav under
Section 202 Cr.P.C. Documentary evidence was also filed, including
the carbon copy of the F.I.R./application, the copy of N.C.R. No.
24, the injury report and X-ray report of the complainant, and the
caste certificate issued by the Tehsildar.
6. By the impugned order dated 28.02.2017, the learned Special
Judge, after hearing the complainant's counsel and perusing the case
diary and the oral and documentary evidence, found a prima facie
case against the five applicants and summoned them. The remaining
persons named in the protest petition, being police officers, were
not summoned, the learned Judge finding no prima facie case
against them.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the
impugned order is mechanical and non-speaking and the
investigation found the allegations false and supported by
statements of independent villagers. Furthermore, the protest

4
A482 No. - 15553 of 2017
petition is directed substantially against police officers and does not
disclose any offence by the applicants and the complainant's version
is an afterthought. Further, he relied upon the judgement of Apex
Court in Rajnish Kumar Biswakarma vs. State of NCT of Delhi and
another, Criminal Appeal No.4680 of 2024 and State of Punjab vs.
Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and others etc, Criminal Appeal
Nos.753 to 755 of 2009, the relevant para of State of Punjab (supra)
is extracted below:
“72. It is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is
not in consonance with law, all subsequent and
consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason
that illegality strikes at the root of the order. In such a fact-
situation, the legal maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus"
meaning thereby that foundation being removed,
structure/work falls, comes into play and applies on all
scores in the present case.”
8. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for O.P. No.2 opposed
the appeal and submitted that the impugned order is a reasoned
order passed after examination of the complainant and the
witnesses. Furthermore, the injuries are supported by medical
evidence and the issues raised are matters of defence to be tested at
trial. They further submitted that charge has already been framed
and the trial, now at the stage of cross-examination of PW-1, should
not be stalled further. Further, learned counsel for O.P. No.2 relied
upon the judgement of the Apex Court in Ratilal Bhanji Mithani vs.
State of Maharashtra and others, (1979) 2 SCC 179.

5
A482 No. - 15553 of 2017
9. At the stage of summoning under Sections 200 to 204 Cr.P.C.,
the Special Judge is required only to be satisfied that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding. The enquiry is limited to whether
a prima facie case is made out on the material before the court and
the truth, sufficiency and probative value of that material are
matters for trial. The court at this stage does not weigh the evidence
as it would on a final appraisal, nor does it act as a court of appeal
over the facts.
10. In Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5
SCC 749, the Apex Court has held as under:
“28. 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. The 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.”
11. In Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 5 SCC
424, the Apex court has held as under:
“13. Section 204 of the Code does not mandate the
Magistrate to explicitly state the reasons for issuance of
summons. It clearly states that if in the opinion of a

6
A482 No. - 15553 of 2017
Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is
sufficient ground for proceeding, then the summons may be
issued. This section mandates the Magistrate to form an
opinion as to whether there exists a sufficient ground for
summons to be issued but it is nowhere mentioned in the
section that the explicit narration of the same is mandatory,
meaning thereby that it is not a prerequisite for deciding the
validity of the summons issued.
14. Time and again it has been stated by this Court that the
summoning order under Section 204 of the Code requires
no explicit reasons to be stated because it is imperative that
the Magistrate must have taken notice of the accusations
and applied his mind to the allegations made in the police
report and the materials filed therewith.
16. In Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgis,
(1976) 3 SCC 736, this Court held that it is not the province
of the Magistrate to enter into a detailed discussion on the
merits or demerits of the case. It was further held that in
deciding whether a process should be issued, the Magistrate
can take into consideration improbabilities appearing on the
face of the complaint or in the evidence led by the
complainant in support of the allegations. The Magistrate
has been given an undoubted discretion in the matter and
the discretion has to be judicially exercised by him. It was
further held that:
"5.... Once the Magistrate has exercised his
discretion it is not for the High Court, or even this
Court, to substitute its own discretion for that of the
Magistrate or to examine the case on merits with a
view to find out whether or not the allegations in the
complaint, if proved, would ultimately end in
conviction of the accused."”
12. In Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015)
12 SCC 420, the Apex Court has held as under:
“20. The extensive reference to the case law would clearly
show that cognizance of an offence on complaint is taken
for the purpose of issuing process to the accused. Since it is
a process of taking judicial notice of certain facts which
constitute an offence, there has to be application of mind as
to whether the allegations in the complaint, when
considered along with the statements recorded or the
inquiry conducted thereon, would constitute violation of
law so as to call a person to appear before the criminal
court. It is not a mechanical process or matter of course. As
held by this Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. to set in motion the
process of criminal law against a person is a serious matter.

7
A482 No. - 15553 of 2017
21. Under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC, the Magistrate has the
advantage of a police report and under Section 190(1)(c)
CrPC, he has the information or knowledge of commission
of an offence. But under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC, he has
only a complaint before him. The Code hence specifies that
"a complaint of facts which constitute such offence".
Therefore, if the complaint, on the face of it, does not
disclose the commission of any offence, the Magistrate shall
not take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC. The
complaint is simply to be rejected.
22. The steps taken by the Magistrate under Section 190(1)
(a) CrPC followed by Section 204 CrPC should reflect that
the Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts and the
statements and he is satisfied that there is ground for
proceeding further in the matter by asking the person
against whom the violation of law is alleged, to appear
before the court. The satisfaction on the ground for
proceeding would mean that the facts alleged in the
complaint would constitute an offence, and when
considered along with the statements recorded, would,
prima facie, make the accused answerable before the court.
No doubt. no formal order or a speaking order is required to
be passed at that stage. The Code of Criminal Procedure
requires speaking order to be passed under Section 203
CrPC when the complaint is dismissed and that too the
reasons need to be stated only briefly. In other words, the
Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking cognizance
of each and every complaint filed before him and issue
process as a matter of course. There must be sufficient
indication in the order passed by the Magistrate that he is
satisfied that the allegations in the complaint constitute an
offence and when considered along with the statements
recorded and the result of inquiry or report of investigation
under Section 202 CrPC, if any, the accused is answerable
before the criminal court, there is ground for proceeding
against the accused under Section 204 CrPC, by issuing
process for appearance. The application of mind is best
demonstrated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. If
there is no such indication in a case where the Magistrate
proceeds under Sections 190/204 CrPC, the High Court
under Section 482 CrPC is bound to invoke its inherent
power in order to prevent abuse of the power of the criminal
court. To be called to appear before the criminal court as an
accused is serious matter affecting one's dignity, self-respect
and image in society. Hence, the process of criminal court
shall not be made a weapon of harassment.”

8
A482 No. - 15553 of 2017
An appellate or revisional court, in turn, will not interfere
unless the order suffers from a material illegality, perversity, or lack
of jurisdiction.
13. The impugned order records that the injury report of the
complainant, Naresh Kumar, notes four injuries. Injury no. 1 is an
incised wound, which the doctor opined to be caused by a sharp-
edged weapon. Injuries nos. 2 and 3 are contusions and injury no. 4
is a complaint of pain. The X-ray conducted at the District Hospital,
Orai, revealed a fracture of a finger of the left hand. These findings
are consistent with the complainant's allegation that he was
assaulted with lathi, danda and axe, and they corroborate the
statements of the complainant himself, who is an injured witness, as
well as of PW-1 Vindeshwari and PW-2 Basanti, who are also stated
to have been injured, and of the eye-witnesses PW-3 to PW-5. The
evidence of an injured witness carries a presumption of presence at
the place of occurrence and is ordinarily not lightly discarded. The
learned Special Judge was therefore justified in finding the ocular
version to be supported by the medical evidence at this stage. The
submission regarding the timing of the medical examination and X-
ray is, in the facts of the case, a matter relating to the weight of the
evidence, which can be examined at trial and in no way renders the
complaint prima facie unsustainable.

9
A482 No. - 15553 of 2017
14. Learned counsel for the applicants was unable to point to any
material contradiction or inherent improbability in the statements of
the complainant and his witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and
202 Cr.P.C. All of them consistently stated about the time of
occurrence (about 8:00 p.m. on 11.10.2013), the place (the
complainant's house and courtyard), the names of the accused, the
weapons used, the abusive caste-based remarks and the injuries to
the complainant, his wife and daughter-in-law. Minor variations, if
any, are normal and do not go to the root of the matter. Whether the
witnesses are believable, and whether the contrary statements
gathered during investigation, including the affidavits of persons
produced by the accused side, are to be preferred, are questions of
appreciation of evidence that cannot be decided at the stage of
summoning or in an appeal against it.
15. It was forcefully urged on behalf of learned counsel for the
applicants that the protest petition names only police officers and
imputes misconduct only to them. This submission cannot be
accepted, for the following reasons:
(i) The F.I.R. in Case Crime No. 3680/2013 was registered on the
direction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate against the very
accused persons now before this Court and the allegations of the
offence were thus made against them from the beginning.

10
A482 No. - 15553 of 2017
(ii) The protest petition was filed against a final report in that very
case. It narrates the incident of 11.10.2013, the role of the
applicants, and prays for action against them as well. The complaint
therefore stands on the allegation of the incident itself, and the
averments about the police officers are in the nature of the
grievance against the investigation.
(iii) The allegations against the police officers are, at their highest,
of negligent, partisan or deficient investigation, namely that the
injuries were not recorded, that statements of the injured were not
properly taken, and that the spot was not inspected. Such averments,
even if assumed to be true, concern the conduct of public servants
and do not detract from the material against the applicants. They do
not amount to a material illegality in the impugned order. The
learned Special Judge, in fact, declined to summon the police
officers, which shows application of mind and discrimination
between the persons against whom prima facie material existed and
those against whom it did not.
(iv) The court is not bound by the conclusions of the police report
and may, on a protest petition, take cognizance and proceed on the
complaint, taking his own view of the material. The error, if any, in
the investigation by the police does not disentitle the complainant
from pursuing the case against the actual accused persons.

11
A482 No. - 15553 of 2017
16. It is evident from the record placed before this Court that,
since the impugned order, charge has been framed against the
applicants on 28.01.2025. The examination-in-chief of the
prosecution's first witness, PW-1 Naresh Kumar, was recorded on
03.09.2025 during trial proceedings. The defence has been cross-
examining him on several dates, namely 20.12.2025, 12.01.2026
and 10.02.2026, and his cross-examination is yet to be concluded.
The applicants have thus submitted to the trial process and have
actively participated in the testing of the prosecution evidence. The
trial court is the proper forum for assessing whether the allegations
are proved or not and the witnesses are being tested through cross-
examination, and the contentions now urged, regarding
contradictions, improbability and the falsity of the version, can be
urged at the trial and in the final arguments, where the evidence can
be assessed as a whole. The judgements of the Apex Court in
Rajnish Kumar Biswakarma (supra) and State of Punjab (supra),
relied upon by learned counsel for the applicants, are distinguisable
on facts and, therefore, do not apply in their entirety to the present
case. Learned counsel for O.P. No.2 rightly relied upon the
judgement of the Apex Court in Ratilal Bhanji Mithani (supra). The
relevant paras are extracted below:
“30. If after framing charges the Magistrate whimsically,
without appraising the evidence and without permitting the
prosecution to produce all its evidence, "discharges" the
accused, such an acquittal, without trial, even if clothed as
"discharge", will be illegal……..

12
A482 No. - 15553 of 2017
34. It is thus manifest that in abruptly deleting the charges
and "discharging" the accused, the Magistrate was acting
neither in accordance with the observation or directions of
Gokhale, J., nor in accordance with law.”
17. In the circumstances, the application calls for no detailed or
meticulous examination of the evidence. This Court, in an
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against an order of
summoning, is not required to conduct a mini-trial, to weigh the
evidence in a pan of scales, or to pre-empt the findings of the trial
court by pronouncing on the credibility or merit of the material.
Doing so would also prejudice the parties in the pending trial. Any
observation in this order is confined to examining whether the
impugned order is legally sustainable and shall not influence the
trial court in any manner.
18. The incident relates to 11.10.2013. The accused were
summoned on 28.02.2017, and about nine years have passed since
then. The pendency of this petition, and any interim protection
granted in it, must have contributed to the delay in the prosecution.
The applicants, the complainant and the State have a right to a
speedy trial. The offences alleged include those under the Act,
which reflect a legislative concern for the protection of members of
the Scheduled Castes, and the Act also contemplates that the trial of
such cases be held expeditiously. It would be contrary to justice if a
trial, which is already at the stage of evidence, were to be further
delayed on grounds which can be urged before the trial court itself.

13
A482 No. - 15553 of 2017
19. Thus, The legal position governing taking of cognizance and
issuance of process stands well settled by the decisions of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. (supra), Bhushan
Kumar (supra) and Mehmood Ul Rehman (supra) as discuss herein
above. The settled principle is that summoning an accused is a
serious judicial act and criminal law cannot be set in motion
mechanically or as a matter of course. Although a formal or
elaborate speaking order is not invariably required at the stage of
issuing process, the order and the material on record must
sufficiently indicate that the Magistrate has applied judicial mind to
the allegations, the statements recorded and the other relevant
material, and has arrived at the requisite satisfaction that sufficient
ground exists for proceeding against the person concerned. The
Magistrate is required to determine whether the allegations, if
considered with the material available at that stage, prima facie
disclose an offence and make the proposed accused answerable
before the criminal court; the question is not whether the evidence
is sufficient to secure conviction. Accordingly, neither the absence
of elaborate reasons, by itself, invalidates a summoning order, nor
can the mere issuance of process be treated as conclusive proof of
due application of mind. The legality of the order must be assessed
in the light of the applicable statutory provisions and the facts and
circumstances of the particular case.

14
A482 No. - 15553 of 2017
20. This Court finds that the learned Special Court has not
committed any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error
in taking cognizance and summoning the accused-applicants,
namely, Raj Kumar, Ram Swaroop, Smt. Gayatri, Deepu and Dalpat
Singh. The impugned order, when examined in its entirety and in
the context of the material placed before the court, does not suffer
from any such infirmity as would warrant interference by this Court
in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. It is well settled that, at
the stage of taking cognizance and issuing process, the court is
required to ascertain whether sufficient ground exists for
proceeding against the proposed accused, and not to undertake a
meticulous evaluation of the evidence as would be necessary at the
stage of trial. Accordingly, in the absence of any manifest illegality,
perversity or abuse of the process of the court, the impugned order
dated 28.02.2017 calls for no interference.
21. The impugned order dated 28.02.2017 passed by the learned
Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jalaun at Orai, in Complaint Case No.
11/2017, is affirmed.
22. The instant application is, accordingly, rejected.
23. The interim order, if any, granted during the pendency of this
appeal stands vacated.

15
A482 No. - 15553 of 2017
24. The learned trial court is directed to proceed with the trial
expeditiously and to conclude the cross-examination of PW-1 and
the remaining evidence as early as possible, preferably within one
year by fixing short dates from the date of production of a certified
copy of this order. The parties shall cooperate, and no unnecessary
adjournment shall be granted.
25. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate the instant
order to the court concerned through District and Sessions Judge,
Jalaun at Orai by e-mail/FAX within 48 hours.
(Santosh Rai,J.)
October 27, 2026
Ankit.
Digitally signed by :-
ANKIT VISHWAKARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad