Lala And Another vs State of U.P. and Another

A.F.R.
Reserved on 02.04.2026
Delivered on 03.06.2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 680 of 2025
Lala And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Moeez Uddin, Vikrant Gupta
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Gaurav Singh Chauhan
Court No. - 6
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been
filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 18.12.2024 passed by Special
Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge Court No.14 Bulandshahar in
Criminal Revision No.47 of 2024 (Mahesh and another Vs. State of U.P.
and another) as well as order dated 20.01.2024 passed by Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bulandshahar in Complaint Case No.1871 of 2014 (Pradeep
Vs. Lala and another) under section 302 I.P.C., Police Station
Ahmadgarh, District Bulandshahar in Case Crime No.221 of 2013, under
section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Ahmadgarh, District Bulandshahar.
Facts of the Case
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 03.11.2013 at about 10:00
p.m., village Chaukidar Rajendra gave information at Police Station
Ahmadgarh, District Bulandshahr, regarding the death of Rahul, son of
Anokhe Lal. He stated that Rahul had allegedly consumed liquor and,
after losing his senses, fell from the roof of Maharaj Singh. The villagers
took him to a hospital at Bulandshahr for treatment, where he later died

A227 No. 680 of 2025
2
due to his injuries. Thereafter, on the same day, Pradeep Kumar, the
brother of the deceased Rahul, lodged an FIR in Case Crime No. 221 of
2013 under Section 302 IPC at Police Station Ahmadgarh, District
Bulandshahr.
3. In the FIR, he alleged that at about 7:00 p.m., Rahul was murdered by
Lala, son of Mahesh, and Mahesh, son of Dhoom Singh. According to the
informant, the accused persons first made Rahul consume liquor at their
house and thereafter assaulted him, causing injuries on his head. On
receiving information about the incident, villagers took Rahul to the
District Hospital, Bulandshahr, where he was declared dead.
4. The matter was investigated by the police. Upon completion of
investigation, a final report was submitted concluding that no case was
made out against the accused persons. Being dissatisfied with the final
report, the informant filed a protest petition before the Magistrate. The
protest petition was treated as a complaint case. During the inquiry
proceedings, statements of seven witnesses were recorded in support of
the complaint. After considering the material available on record, the
Magistrate found sufficient grounds to proceed and summoned both
petitioners/accused persons to face trial for the offence punishable under
Section 302 IPC.
Submissions on behalf of the petitioners
5. Shri Vikrant Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the allegations made against the petitioners are wholly false and are not
supported by any reliable evidence. It is argued that during investigation
the Investigating Officer found that Rahul had consumed liquor and, in an
intoxicated condition, accidentally fell from the roof, resulting in the

A227 No. 680 of 2025
3
injuries which ultimately caused his death. On the basis of the material
collected during investigation, a final report was submitted.
6. It is further submitted that Rajendra, the village Chaukidar, who had
first informed the police about the incident and had stated that Rahul fell
from the roof while intoxicated, has not been examined by the
complainant. According to the petitioners, the non-examination of this
material witness creates serious doubt regarding the prosecution version.
7. Learned counsel further contended that although statements of seven
witnesses were recorded during the complaint proceedings, none of them
claimed to have actually witnessed the occurrence. Their statements are
based either on suspicion, hearsay, or information received from others.
Therefore, there is no direct evidence connecting the petitioners with the
alleged offence.
8. It is also argued that P.W.-2 Somveer, who is the brother-in-law of the
informant Pradeep Kumar, stated that the petitioners had allegedly
confessed before him that they had no intention to kill Rahul. According
to learned counsel, even if such statement is accepted at its face value, it
does not support the allegation of intentional murder and rather weakens
the prosecution case under Section 302 IPC.
9. Learned counsel further submitted that the FIR is completely silent
regarding any motive for the alleged murder. However, at a later stage,
during the complaint proceedings, a new story was introduced that the
petitioners had taken Rahul to their house with an intention to grab
Rs.35,000/- allegedly possessed by him and thereafter killed him. It is
argued that this material improvement was never mentioned in the FIR
and appears to be an afterthought introduced to strengthen an otherwise

A227 No. 680 of 2025
4
weak case.
10. On the strength of the aforesaid circumstances, learned counsel
submitted that the statements of the witnesses are neither convincing nor
reliable and suffer from material omissions and improvements. It is,
therefore, argued that the summoning order has been passed without
sufficient material and amounts to an abuse of the process of law,
warranting interference by the Court.
Submissions on behalf of respondents
11. Shri Prateek Tyagi, learned A.G.A. as well as Shri Gaurav Singh
Chauhan, learned counsel for private respondent submitted that at the
stage of summoning, the Court is only required to see whether a prima
facie case is made out from the material available on record and not
whether the prosecution case is likely to result in conviction. It was
contended that the complainant, Pradeep Kumar, in his statement
recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., has specifically stated that the
deceased Rahul had returned from Orissa one day prior to the incident and
was carrying Rs.35,000/- with him. According to him, on the morning of
02.11.2013, both petitioners came to his house and took Rahul along with
them on the pretext of having tea at their house. Thereafter, Rahul was
found seriously injured and ultimately died.
12. It was further submitted that the statements recorded under Section
202 Cr.P.C. lend support to the version of the complainant. P.W.-1
Pawan, P.W.-3 Sheetal, who is the wife of the deceased, and P.W.-4
Rekha have consistently stated that Rahul was called by the petitioners
from his house and had gone with them. These witnesses have also stated
that Rahul was carrying Rs.35,000/- at that time.

A227 No. 680 of 2025
5
13. It was further argued that the evidence collected during the complaint
inquiry discloses that although Rahul was carrying Rs.35,000/- when he
left his house with the petitioners, the said amount was found missing
thereafter. This circumstance, coupled with the fact that the deceased was
last seen in the company of the petitioners and was later found dead,
constitutes a strong incriminating circumstance against them.
14. It was contended that the reliability, truthfulness and evidentiary value
of the witnesses cannot be examined in detail at the stage of summoning.
The defence put forward by the petitioners and the conclusions drawn by
the Investigating Officer in the final report are matters to be considered
during trial. At this stage, the statements recorded under Sections 200 and
202 Cr.P.C. disclose sufficient grounds for proceeding against the
petitioners.
15. On the aforesaid grounds, it was submitted that the Magistrate has
passed the summoning order after considering the statements of the
complainant and the witnesses and no illegality, perversity or
jurisdictional error is made out warranting interference by this Court.
Conclusion and Findings of the Court
16. Having considered the rival submissions and carefully examined the
material available on record, this Court finds that the impugned
summoning order cannot be sustained.
17. At the outset, it is noticeable that the dead body of the deceased was
found lying in front of the house of Maharaj Singh. Neither during
investigation nor during the complaint proceedings has any satisfactory
explanation been furnished as to how the deceased reached that place. The

A227 No. 680 of 2025
6
complaint version seeks to suggest that the deceased was taken by the
petitioners to their house, where he was allegedly assaulted and murdered.
However, no witness has explained the circumstances in which the
deceased was thereafter found at a different place. This missing link goes
to the root of the matter and creates a serious gap in the prosecution story.
18. It is further significant that neither the FIR nor the protest petition
contains any allegation that the deceased was carrying Rs.35,000/- with
him when he accompanied the petitioners to their house. Likewise, there
is no allegation in either of these documents that the petitioners had taken
the deceased with them for the purpose of grabbing the said amount.
These facts surfaced for the first time in the statements recorded under
Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. A protest petition, once converted into a
complaint, becomes the foundational pleading of the complaint case and
must contain all material facts constituting the accusation. Material facts
omitted from the protest petition cannot ordinarily be supplied later
through oral statements. Introduction of such facts for the first time during
enquiry amounts to a material improvement and raises serious doubts
regarding the genuineness of the accusation. Such improvements assume
greater significance when they seek to provide motive where none existed
in the original version.
19. Another circumstance which renders the complaint version doubtful is
that the incident is alleged to have occurred within the village itself. The
deceased, the petitioners, the informant and most of the witnesses belong
to the same village. It is, therefore, surprising that none of the witnesses
claims to have knowledge of the actual occurrence, despite the fact that
the deceased allegedly sustained fatal injuries within the village and was
thereafter taken to the hospital by villagers. The circumstances under

A227 No. 680 of 2025
7
which the deceased was found injured and the identity of those who first
reached the spot have remained unexplained.
20. Particular attention must be given to the testimony of P.W.-2
Somveer. In his statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C., he claimed that he
had seen the petitioners assaulting the deceased in front of their house.
According to him, he left the place out of fear and later informed his
family members. However, the same witness also stated that the
petitioners subsequently confessed before him that they had no intention
to kill the deceased. The conduct attributed to the witness appears
unnatural. If he was so frightened that he could not intervene or remain at
the spot, it is difficult to comprehend how the petitioners would thereafter
make a confession before him. Such inconsistencies strike at the
credibility of the witness and require careful scrutiny before any reliance
can be placed upon his statement.
21. The pPresent case also highlights an important aspect concerning the
exercise of jurisdiction by a Magistrate while dealing with a final report
and a protest petition. The law undoubtedly permits a Magistrate to treat a
protest petition as a complaint and proceed in accordance with Chapter
XV of the Code. However, such power must be exercised with great
caution, particularly where allegations relate to grave offences such as
murder.
22. Where the accusation concerns a serious crime and the true facts can
be unearthed only through a thorough investigation involving collection
of scientific, medical, forensic or circumstantial evidence, the Court must
first consider whether conversion of the final report into a complaint case
would genuinely advance the cause of justice. The primary object of

A227 No. 680 of 2025
8
every criminal proceeding is discovery of truth. If that object cannot
effectively be achieved through a complaint enquiry, the Court should
consider directing further investigation rather than mechanically
converting the final report into a complaint case.
23. Conversion of a final report into a complaint case should never
become an empty formality. There may be cases where the police
investigation is defective, incomplete or unfair. In such situations, further
investigation may be the appropriate course. A complaint enquiry is not
intended to substitute a full-fledged criminal investigation in cases where
crucial facts can be established only through investigative processes. For
example, where the prosecution case depends upon recovery of
incriminating articles, scientific examination, electronic evidence, call
records, forensic analysis, or reconstruction of the incident, a complaint
enquiry may not be sufficient to ascertain the truth.
24. Even where the Magistrate is satisfied that conversion of the final
report into a complaint case would serve the ends of justice, the
Magistrate should not remain a mere spectator during the enquiry. The
duty of the Court in such cases assumes greater importance because the
Court itself becomes responsible for evaluating whether sufficient
grounds exist for proceeding against the accused despite the police having
found otherwise.
25. The Magistrate should therefore carefully examine each witness and,
wherever necessary, put questions to test the credibility of the statements
made. Merely recording statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. in
a mechanical manner may not always serve the purpose of justice.
Witnesses should be questioned regarding the source of their knowledge,

A227 No. 680 of 2025
9
the circumstances in which they acquired such knowledge, any delay in
disclosure, any omissions in earlier versions and other relevant facts
having a bearing upon the reliability of their testimony.
26. Experience shows that there are cases where allegations are ultimately
found to be false or where the investigating agency is unable to collect
reliable evidence in support of the accusation. It often happens that after
submission of a final report, a protest petition is filed and witnesses are
produced in support thereof. While such witnesses may make statements
sufficient to create a superficial appearance of a prima facie case, the
Court must remain vigilant, particularly where the offence alleged is
grave and carries severe consequences.
27. In cases involving serious offences, mere repetition of allegations by
witnesses may not be sufficient. The Court should examine whether the
testimony appears natural, whether it is consistent with the earlier version,
whether it is supported by surrounding circumstances and whether
independent corroboration is available. If the testimony itself requires
scrutiny, the Court should put appropriate questions to the witnesses. If
corroborative evidence appears necessary, the Court should explore
whether such evidence exists before placing reliance upon the statements.
28. The Magistrate should also keep in mind certain additional principles.
Firstly , where the police investigation has resulted in a final report, the
reasons assigned by the Investigating Officer must be carefully
considered and dealt with. Secondly , the Court should identify the
specific material which persuades it to disagree with the conclusions of
the investigating agency. Thirdly , improvements, omissions and
contradictions appearing between the FIR, the protest petition and

A227 No. 680 of 2025
10
statements recorded during enquiry should be examined with care.
Fourthly , where the prosecution case rests upon circumstantial evidence,
the circumstances relied upon should prima facie form a coherent chain
pointing towards the accused. Lastly , the order summoning an accused
for a grave offence must reflect application of judicial mind and should
disclose the reasons which persuaded the Court to proceed against the
accused.
29. In the present case, the material improvements regarding motive and
possession of Rs.35,000/-, the absence of any such allegation in the FIR
and protest petition, the unexplained circumstances regarding the place
where the deceased was found, the doubtful and inconsistent testimony of
the witnesses, and the failure to conduct a meaningful enquiry into these
aspects render the impugned order unsustainable.
30. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that the
Magistrate failed to properly scrutinize the material placed before it
before summoning the petitioners for an offence punishable under Section
302 IPC. Therefore, impugned summoning order suffers from non-
application of mind and cannot be allowed to stand.
31. Accordingly, the petition is allowed . The impugned order dated
18.12.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No.47 of 2024 and order dated
20.01.2024 passed in Complaint Case No.1871 of 2014 arising out of
Case Crime No.221 of 2013, under section 302 I.P.C., Police Station
Ahmadgarh, District Bulandshahar, are hereby set aside.
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
June 3, 2026
SK
Digitally signed by :-
SUSHEEL KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad