Suraj Deen Alias Surajdeen Vishwakarma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

The vakalatnama filed by Ms. Sakshi Srivastava on behalf of opposite party no.2 in the registry on 17.11.2025 is not on record. Registry shall place the same on record.

¶12

The present criminal appeal has been preferred against the summoning order dated 23.5.2025, passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Fatehpur in Complaint Case No. 149 of 2021 (Anil Kumar Vs. Surajdeen Vishwakarma and others), whereby the appellants have been summoned to face trial for the offences under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kalyanpur, District Fatehpur.

¶13

As per contents of the complaint/application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C dated 4.1.2020, it is submitted by the opposite party no.2 in the said complaint that he is 'mason' (Rajmistri). It is alleged that there was an agreement between the appellantSurajdeen Vishwakarma with the complainant in the year 2018 for construction of boundary wall of government market. It was witnessed by Rakesh Yadav and Umesh. Surajdeen is the Gram Pradhan at Meerpur Kurusti Gram Sabha Azamabad Bhainsahi. The complainant constructed the entire boundary wall of the government market on his own expenses of around Rs. 1,50,000/- whereas, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was paid by Surajdeen to the complainant in February, 2018. He assured that rest money would be paid after receiving the funds from the government. The complainant consistently keep in touch with Surajdeen, but he did not pay the money and said that your amount of Rs. 1,40,000/ is saved with me as a trustee. As soon as I got the amount, I shall pay the same. The complainant got this information on 17.2.2020 that the Gram Pradhan, Surajdeen has received the amount from the government, then he went at around 3.00 p.m to his house and demanded his money. Then he told that he did not get any amount. The complainant told that I had enquired that you had already received the money. Then Surajdeen hurled abuses to the complainant to which the

¶14

CRLA No. 10510 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

complainant objected. At that time there were Pappu and Navneet were present. They used casteism language and beaten to the complainant with legs and fists and threatened that if you made any complaint, he will be killed. I tried to lodge the report at the police station Malwa, but they have not registered the FIR, hence the present application has been submitted before the Court.

¶17

The complainant further relied on the statement of himself under Section 200 Cr.P.C and statement recorded under Section 202 of PW-1 Rakesh Yadav and PW-2Umesh Kumar. All the witnesses have supported the said incident.

¶18

The complainant-Anil Kumar has submitted in his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C that talk of construction of boundary wall of government market was made for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-. He completed the entire construction in January, 2012. Whereas, PW-1,Rakesh Yadav and PW-2 Umesh Kumar have stated in their statements under Section 202 Cr.P.C. that talks took place for construction of boundary wall of government market in January 2018. The complainant told that it was took place in the year 2012 in his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The complainant in his application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. also stated that the agreement took place for construction of boundary wall of government market in the year 2018. He alleged that further incident took place on 17.2.2020 at 3.00 pm in the house of the appellants and there were the persons, father and his two sons and they hurled abuses, but there has been no medical report of 17.2.2020 or of any other date is on record. The report brought by the trial court from the concerned police station, it was brought to the knowledge that Surajdeen was never Pradhan for the period 20152020.

¶19

The opposite party no.2/complainant has implicated all the members of the family, father and his two sons in the said offence. In the complaint, he stated that agreement for constructions of boundary wall at government market took place in the year 2018, but in his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C, he told that it was took place in the year 2012, whereas the supporting evidences produced by the complainant as PW-1 and PW-2 had been recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. in which they have stated that the agreement aforesaid took place in the year 2018. There is no consistency in the statement of the complainant to the witnesses under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. There is also no consistency even in the complaint and thereafter statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. of the complainant and statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C. of PW-1 and PW-2.

¶20

There is huge delay. There is neither injury report nor any medical evidence nor any document of aforesaid agreement or details of expenditure and purchase of material which are alleged to be invested by the complainant.

¶21

It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sujoy Ghosh vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, reported in 2026 INSC 267 , in paragraphs 13 and 14 as follows:

¶22

CRLA No. 10510 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

"13. The principles governing the summoning of an accused in a criminal case, as well as the parameters for quashing criminal proceedings, are well settled. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter, and 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 application of mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. The Magistrate must carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and determine whether any offence is prima facie made out. The Magistrate 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. (See: Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 749; Vikas Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1534.)

¶25

14. When an accused seeks quashing of either the FIR or criminal proceedings on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous, vexatious, or malicious, the Court is duty-bound to examine the matter with greater care. It will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/ complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case, over and above the averments, and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, and try to read between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or Article 226 of the Constitution of India, need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/ registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the the course of investigation. (See: Mohd. Wajid & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2023) 20 SCC 219)."

¶26

The present criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14A of SC/ST Act, 1989. Section Section 14A provides that 'notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and on law.

¶27

The entire issues raised by the complainant in his complainant and supporting evidence has been considered by this Court. This Court find that there is no prima

¶28

CRLA No. 10510 of 2025

¶29

4

¶30

facie truth appeared to be in the complaint of opposite party no.2.

¶31

In view thereof, the said summoning order dated 23.5.2025, passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Fatehpur in Complaint Case No. 149 of 2021 (Anil Kumar Vs. Surajdeen Vishwakarma and others) is hereby set aside .

¶32

The criminal appeal is accordingly, allowed.

¶33

March 26, 2026 sfa/

¶34

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶35

Digitally signed by :- SYED FAHEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Suraj Deen Alias Surajdeen Vishwakarma and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Deen Alias Surajdeen Vishwakarma and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dukhi vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Bakhat Singh Gurjar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajnish Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Ber Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nand Kishor vs Anurag Tomar