Hariom Alias Ramu vs State of U.P. and Another

Case called out. None has appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2. As per the office report, notice has been duly served upon opposite party no. 2; however, no one has put in appearance to oppose the appeal.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri D.K. Rai, learned AGA for the State.

¶13

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred against the summoning order dated 01.10.2019 and the nonbailable warrant dated 25.10.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Etawah, in Complaint Case No. 164 of 2019 (Vandana Gautam vs. Hariom alias Ramu), under Sections 366, 376, 342, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Police Station Bakewar, District Etawah.

¶14

Briefly stated, the respondent/informant moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging that she and the appellant were known to each other as classmates. She stated that, reposing trust in the appellant, she handed over her educational certificates to him for uploading online in connection with vacancies advertised by the police department. When she demanded return of her documents, the appellant avoided doing so on one pretext or another. On 14.10.2018, when she insisted upon return of the certificates, the appellant allegedly threatened her and called her near Ludhiyani Cross Road on the pretext of returning the documents.

¶15

It is alleged that on 16.10.2018, when she reached near Ludhiyani Cross

¶16

CRLA No. 11851 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

Road, the appellant arrived in a four-wheeler and asked her to sit inside the vehicle for return of the documents. Two unknown persons also came out of the vehicle and, as per the allegations, forcibly dragged her inside. It is further alleged that she was confined in the vehicle, her mouth and eyes were covered with cloth, and she was taken to Sector-71, Noida, where she was kept in a house. According to the complaint, all three persons threatened her and committed rape upon her. She has stated that she requested them to spare her as she was a married woman, but they threatened her with dire consequences.

¶19

It is further alleged that on 20.12.2018 she was taken to Abohar, Punjab, where the appellant again committed rape. Thereafter, she was taken by train to Agra and then to Farrukhabad, where she was kept at the house of the appellant's sister. When the sister inquired about her presence, the appellant allegedly informed her that the victim was his colleague who had come to appear in a competitive examination. The complainant has stated that she did not lodge any complaint during this period due to fear, as the appellant had allegedly threatened to kill her husband.

¶20

It is further alleged that she was thereafter taken to Kannauj. The appellant allegedly called her husband to Kannauj and pressurised him to sign blank papers, stating that only upon signing would his wife be released. Her husband is said to have signed certain blank papers and some stamp papers on which the photograph of the victim was affixed, though he refused to sign some documents. She has also alleged that the appellant took her jewellery and Rs. 5,000/- which were in her possession. Subsequently, when the appellant apprehended trouble, he allegedly left both the complainant and her husband and fled.

¶21

The application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was treated as a complaint. Statements of the complainant, her husband Narendra Singh, and one Patiram were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. On the basis of these statements, the learned Trial Court summoned the appellant to face trial under Sections 366, 376, 342 and 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act.

¶22

Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the entire prosecution story is inherently improbable. It is contended that the allegation of abduction from a public place, followed by

¶23

CRLA No. 11851 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

movement across different cities by train and stay at the residence of the appellant's sister, without any attempt to seek help or raise alarm, renders the version doubtful. It is further submitted that there is no allegation that the accused persons were armed or that any continuous physical restraint was maintained throughout the alleged period of confinement. The conduct attributed to the parties, including summoning of the husband and execution of blank papers, is stated to be unnatural and unsupported by specific details. Hence, it is argued that the summoning order has been passed without proper application of mind and is liable to be set aside.

¶26

Learned AGA has submitted that the complainant and her husband have supported the allegations in their statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., and that at the stage of summoning, the Court is only required to see whether a prima facie case is made out. It is contended that the learned Trial Court, upon consideration of the material on record, found sufficient ground to proceed against the appellant.

¶27

I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

¶28

From the material on record, it appears that the allegations involve abduction from a public place, subsequent travel across several cities including Noida, Abohar, Agra and Farrukhabad, and stay at the house of a relative of the appellant. The complainant has alleged wrongful confinement for several days; however, there is no specific averment that the accused persons were armed or that any particular method of restraint was continuously employed during travel or stay at different places. The circumstances, as narrated, raise questions regarding the natural course of events and conduct of the parties.

¶29

The allegation of summoning the husband and compelling him to sign blank papers and stamp papers has been made in general terms, without clear description of the nature or contents of such documents. The sequence of events, as disclosed in the complaint and supporting statements, contains elements which require cautious scrutiny.

¶30

Considering the totality of circumstances, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court, while passing the summoning order, has not sufficiently examined the inherent improbabilities and surrounding circumstances emerging from the record. The matter, therefore, calls for interference.

¶31

CRLA No. 11851 of 2025

¶32

4

¶33

Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned summoning order and consequential proceedings against the appellant are hereby set aside.

¶34

February 16, 2026 Mukesh

¶35

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

¶36

Digitally signed by :- MUKESH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hariom Alias Ramu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariom Alias Ramu 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Siraj Ali Alias Babu vs State of U.P. and Another

Pramila Chaudhary vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Kusum Vishwakarma vs State of U.P. and Another

Farman vs State of U.P. and Another

Munindra Alias Guddu and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Siraj Ali Alias Babu vs State of U.P. and Another