Manju Lata and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10670 of 2025

¶3

Manju Lata And Another

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

Versus State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Rang Nath Pandey, Santosh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Court No. - 51

¶6

HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

¶7

Heard Shri Rang Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri R.K. Singh, learned AGA for the State. As per office report, notice on the respondent/informant has been duly served, but none has appeared on behalf of the said respondent to oppose the appeal.

¶8

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellants with a prayer to allow the appeal and set aside the order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sonbhadra in Warrant and Summon Cases No. 171/2023 (Rajkumari Vs. Manju Lata Pandey and others) arising out of Application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. in Case Crime No. 215/2022 in Final Report No. 225/2023, under Sections 342, 294, 354, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C and 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Chopan, District-Sonbhadra.

¶9

Factual matrix of the case is that an FIR was lodged by victim/informant against the present appellants in Case Crime No. 215 of 2022 under Sections 356, 342, 294, 354, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C and 3(2)(v-a) and 3(1)Dha) of SC/ST Act. Matter was investigated and police

¶10

CRLA No. 10670 of 2025

¶11

2

¶12

submitted a final report. Aggrieved by the said final report, victim filed a protest petition. Said protest petition was allowed by the learned trial court and it converted the protest petition into complaint case. Statement of victim was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Apart from that, statements of five other witnesses of victim were also recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The learned trial court, after examining the statements of victim and other witnesses, found sufficient ground to proceed against the appellants and, accordingly, vide order dated 30.4.2024, has summoned them to face trial. Aggrieved by the said summoning order, this criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that allegations in the first information report, prima facie , appear to be exaggerated, concocted and fabricated. The matter was thoroughly investigated by the Investigating Officer and he found that allegations were false and, accordingly, he filed a final report. However, the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer was converted into a complaint. The statements of victim and other witnesses are riddled with contradictions and, prima facie , appear to be embellished and exaggerated. Victim has alleged that appellants, who were unknown to her, proposed her to engage her for professional devotional/spiritual singing and, thereafter, took victim alongwith other ladies companions of the victim in a car to their house, where the alleged incident of rape was committed. She has also alleged that appellant no.1, who happens to be a lady, was also accompanied appellant no.2 at the time of alleged incident which, prima facie , establishes falsehood of the allegations. Hence, the impugned cognizance/summoning order passed by the learned trial court suffers

¶14

CRLA No. 10670 of 2025

¶15

3

¶16

from illegality and is liable to be set aside.

¶17

Learned AGA has submitted that statements of victim and other five witnesses establish a prima facie case against the appellants. They are consistently stated that victim and other ladies, who were companions of victim, were subjected to sexual assault by the appellants. Hence, the impugned order summoning the appellant does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and this criminal appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶18

I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record including the statements of victim and other witnesses.

¶19

It is evident from perusal of impugned order that learned trial court has not even made a brief discussion of the statements of victims and witnesses recorded before it. No reasons have been assigned to summon the appellants. Any order of summoning accused persons under Section 204 Cr.P.C. without discussing the the statements of complaint and witnesses and then assigning reasons to summon them is unsustainable. In Lalankumar Singh and Others v. State of Maharashtra 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383 , it was observed that :

¶20

“38. The order of issuance of process is not an empty formality. The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not. The formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reasons are given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case against the accused. No doubt, that the order need not contain detailed reasons.”

¶21

Similarly in M/S. JM Laboratories & Ors. v. State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 127), it was held:-

¶22

CRLA No. 10670 of 2025

¶23

4

¶24

“35. This Court has clearly held that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. It has been held that 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. This Court held that the Magistrate is required to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence, both oral and documentary in support thereof and as to whether that would be sufficient for proceeding against the accused. It has been held that the Magistrate is not a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning the accused..”

¶25

Therefore, the impugned order dated 30.4.2024 passed by the learned trial court, which is bereft of reasons, is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. The learned trial court is, therefore, directed to pass a fresh order in light of the observations made in the judgment.

¶26

This criminal appeal is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶27

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

¶28

January 27, 2026 SK

¶29

Digitally signed by :- SUSHEEL KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manju Lata and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju Lata and Another 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Akbar and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Shudheer Mishra @ Sonu and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Gorakhnath vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Umashankar vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mithlesh Kumari vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Javed Hasan Khan vs State of U.P. and Another