Narendra Dev vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Narendra Dev vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal appeal admitted with interim protection: no coercive process against the revisionist/appellant till the next date of listing (09.02.2026); counter affidavit, if any, may be filed by the next date of listing; liberty indicated to pursue a discharge application. Final adjudication of the challenge to the summoning order is pending.

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning of the appellant/revisionist by order dated 04.07.2024 in Complaint Case No.35 of 2020 should be interfered with/quashed, given that his name does not find place in the earlier FIR lodged for the same incident of 05.07.2020 and his alleged role is only of exhortation.

Court's answer

The Court held that the matter requires consideration and admitted the criminal appeal, directing listing on 09.02.2026.

Ratio / Principle

As an interim measure, no coercive process shall be adopted against the revisionist till the next date of listing.

Key takeaways

The revisionist was given the option of filing a discharge application instead of assailing the summoning order.obiter¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Criminal Appeal No. 2659 of 2024 (Narendra Dev v. State of U.P. and another), decided December 11, 2025 (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.): Appeal against summoning order dated 04.07.2024 of the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Ambedkar nagar, in Complaint Case No.35 of 2020 ('Ram Teerath Vs. Jiya Ram and others') summoning the appellant under Sections 323/34, 325/34, 504, 506 IPC (co-accused S.I. Dharmendra Singh also summoned under Sections 3(1)(Da), (Dha,) and 3(2)VA S.C./S.T. Act). Appellant contended that an earlier FIR dated 05.07.2020 (22:20 hours) under Sections 506, 323 IPC for the very same incident (05.07.2020, 20:00 hours) did not name him, his role in the complaint being only of exhortation. Held: matter requires consideration; appeal admitted and listed on 09.02.2026; liberty to file a discharge application instead of assailing the summoning order; until the next date of listing, no coercive process shall be adopted against the revisionist.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2659 of 2024

Narendra Dev

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Sanjay : G.A., Siddiq	Kum Adil ui	ar Singh Hussain, Rehan Ahmad

Court No. - 27

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

The instant criminal appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 04.07.2024 passed by court of learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Ambedkar nagar in Complaint Case No.35 of 2020 "Ram Teerath Vs. Jiya Ram and others", whereby learned court below has summoned the appellant under Section 323/34, 325/34, 504, 506 IPC.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant alongwith co-accused Manoj Kumar and Jiya Ram were summoned under Sections 323/34, 325/34, 504, 506 IPC and co-accused S.I. Dharmendra Singh has been summoned under Sections 323/34, 325/34, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(Da), (Dha,) and 3(2)VA S.C./S.T. Act by impugned order dated 04.07.2024.

He next submitted that on similar accusations earlier an FIR was lodged at the instance of nephew of the complainant. On the same allegations, the complainant filed an FIR against Manoj Kumar and Jyia Ram, who were also co-accused in complaint case, with regard to the incident of same date and time i.e. 05.07.2020 at 20:00 hours, that Manoj Kumar and Jiya Ram assaulted him with a lahti and danda due to which he suffered injuries in his right wrist and lower body. This FIR was

CRLA No. 2659 of 2024

2

lodged on 05.07.2020 at 22:20 hours under Sections 506, 323 IPC. Just after lodging the FIR, the informant filed a complaint, which is registered as Complaint Case No.35 of 2020, regarding the incident of the same date and time, in which the revisionist and S.I. Dharmendra Singh have been added as co-accused and allegations of causing grievous injuries on the right wrist of the complainant, have been attributed to S.I. Dharmendra Singh. The role of the revisionist is stated as that of exhortation. The complainant has stated that, in the incident, the complainant and his nephew suffered injuries. The co-accused Jiya Ram, Manoj Kumar and Narendra Dev caught the complainant and his nephew Amitendra from his field and took him to the police station. Thus, without any cogent reason, the name of the revisionist is included in the complaint, whereas it does find place in the FIR with regard to the same incident.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.2 submitted that no cogent ground has been disclosed by the revisionist to quash the proceedings of the complaint case against him.

Matter requires consideration.

Admit.

List on 09.02.2026.

The revisionist may file a discharge application instead of assailing the summoning order.

Counter affidavit, if any, may be filed by the next date of listing.

Till the next date of listing, no coercive process shall be adopted against the revisionist.

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

December 11, 2025

Mohd. Sharif

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench