Manjeet Singh @ Gaganjeet Singh and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Instant 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 09/10/2025, passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Sitapur in Complaint Case No. 185 of 2023, C.I.S. No.245/2023, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 427 of the Indian Penal Code and 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Tulsi Ram versus Salil Seth and others, Police Station Biswan, District Sitapur.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the instant case an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC was filed by the complainant, Tulsi Ram, for lodging an FIR and investigation by the police on 14/08/2023 with regard to the incident dated 17/06/2023, which was treated as a complaint by the learned Special Judge and proceedings of complaint case and inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC were carried out, and thereafter, the appellants and co-accused have been summoned to face trial by the impugned order dated 09/10/2025. Thus, the application for lodging the FIR was itself moved by the respondent no.2 belatedly after about two months of the incident.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the wives of the co-accused persons namely Salil Seth and Surendra Singh have jointly

¶15

CRLA No. 372 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

purchased the disputed land i.e. Gata No. 587, measuring area 0.227 hectare, situated in village Shahpur, Pargana and Tahsil-Biswan, DistrictSitapur from its recorded tenure holder namely Shankar Dayal through registered sale-deed on 16/01/2018 and their names were also mutated in the revenue records and as such, the appellants were having no concern with the land in dispute in any manner.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the aforesaid purchased land by the wives of the co-accused persons namely Salil Seth and Surendra Singh, is in the form of grove land; several trees of Mango, Sheesham, Jamun etc. are standing on that land and they are residing along with their family in another village which is far away from the aforesaid land that's why they could not regularly visit to the aforesaid land.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellants next submitted that when the respondent no. 2 and his family members didn't removed their illegal encroachment from the aforesaid land, which is far away from the aforesaid land that's why they could not regularly visit to the aforesaid land and taking advantage of the said situation the respondent no. 2 and his other family members had secretly fixed a hut upon road side portion of the aforesaid land moved an application before the District Magistrate, Sitapur/Officer In-charge, Sampurna Samadhan Diwas, Tehsil Biswan on which the S.D.M., Tehsil Biswan, Sitapur had directed the S.H.O., Biswan and Tehsildar, Biswan to settle and decide and same was forwarded by the Tehsildar Biswan to R.L/Lekhpal and S.H.O. take investigate and take appropriate action as per rule, upon the application itself.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the said team reached the spot and talked with the parties and thereafter, the respondent no.2 and his family members had removed their encroachment from the aforesaid land without any dispute.

¶21

He next submitted that a civil suit is pending in regard to land in dispute in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Biswan, Sitapur. He further

¶22

CRLA No. 372 of 2026

¶23

3

¶24

submitted that this Court had passed an interim order in criminal appeal preferred by Salil Seth and another in Criminal Appeal No. 4061 of 2025, arising out of the same impugned order, on 16/12/2025. A copy of the court's order has been filed as Annexure-15 to the affidavit. He further submitted that the police officials who visited the place of incident for disposal of the matter on directions of the senior officers, have also been granted interim relief in their respective criminal appeals by this Court. He next submitted that in Criminal Appeal No.399 of 2026, dated 11/02/2026, the appellants are friends and relatives of the Sanjay Singh and Balvindra Kaur on whose application, the matter was disposed of on the spot by government officials.

¶25

Matter requires consideration.

¶26

Admit.

¶27

Issue notice to respondent no. 2, returnable at an early date, through CJM concerned.

¶28

Steps be taken within a week.

¶29

List this case on 25-3-2026 along with Criminal Appeal No.399 of 2026 and Criminal Appeal No.4061 of 2025.

¶30

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

¶31

Till the next listing, no coercive process shall be adopted against the appellants.

¶32

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶33

February 12, 2026 KR

¶34

Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manjeet Singh @ Gaganjeet Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjeet Singh @ Gaganjeet Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. 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

Similar cases

Rohit Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Indrajeet vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko. and 4 Others

Abdul Majeed and 12 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Tahir Ali and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Syam Krishna Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Saurabh Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another