LALLO PALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
             MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5720 of 2025

Lalloo Pal
                                                            .....Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)      : Binod Kumar Vishwakarma, Pramod
                                 Kumar Katiyar, Yug Raj Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)      : G.A.

Court No. - 40
                   HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the
State.

2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order
dated 14.04.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Kaushambi in Complaint Case No. 2622 of 2022, as well as the order
dated 22.05.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kaushambi in
Criminal Revision No. 64 of 2023, whereby the complaint preferred by
the petitioner has been dismissed and the said order has been affirmed in
revision.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that his father, namely Ram
Aasare, was working as a Chowkidar in a school. It is alleged that he was
suffering from mental illness and that on 20.02.2016, the accused persons,
namely Satendra @ Pahalwan Singh Yadav, Virendra Singh Yadav,
Surendra Singh Yadav and Hiralal, deceitfully abducted him from his
place of work. According to the petitioner, after such abduction, the
victim was taken to unknown locations and was wrongfully confined for a
prolonged period extending over several years.

4. It is further alleged that during the said period of confinement, the
accused persons subjected the victim to physical assault and coercion and,
in collusion with certain bank officials, procured multiple loans in his
name between 22.03.2016 and 12.01.2017 by forging documents and
forcibly obtaining his signatures on various papers, including documents
                                                         A227 No. 5720 of 2025
                               2


relating to mortgaging agricultural land bearing Arazi Nos. 554, 749, 750,
844, 847 and 879.

5. According to the petitioner, after about four years, on 20.07.2020, his
father was found lying in an unconscious condition and, after regaining
consciousness, disclosed that he had been abducted, wrongfully confined,
assaulted, and compelled to sign documents for obtaining loans. An
application was moved before the police authorities on 22.03.2022
narrating the aforesaid facts. The petitioner submits that despite disclosure
of such cognizable offences, no FIR was lodged and no effective action
was taken by the police authorities.

6. The record reflects that the petitioner had earlier moved an application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was treated as a complaint under
Section 200 Cr.P.C. by order dated 01.12.2020, but the same was
dismissed on 21.02.2022 for non-prosecution. Thereafter, the present
complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was instituted on 18.05.2022 again
on similar allegations.

7. The statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 200
Cr.P.C., and statements of witnesses, including the victim, were recorded
under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, upon
consideration of the material, dismissed the complaint holding that no
sufficient ground existed for proceeding. The revisional court affirmed the
said finding.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statements recorded
under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. clearly disclose commission of
cognizable offences and that the courts below have erred in not issuing
process. It is contended that at the stage of summoning, only a prima facie
view is required to be taken.

9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that the allegations are not
supported by any reliable material. It is contended that the entire case
rests only on oral statements of interested parties, without any
corroboration or proof of alleged forgery or coercion. It is further
submitted that the learned Magistrate, after recording statements under
Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., has rightly found absence of sufficient
                                                           A227 No. 5720 of 2025
                                3


ground to proceed, and the revisional court, upon re-appreciation of the
material, has affirmed the said finding. Reliance is placed on the settled
position of law that summoning is not a mechanical exercise and requires
application of mind to ascertain existence of a prima facie case. It is thus
submitted that no illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error is made out
warranting interference.

10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon
perusal of the record, this Court proceeds to examine the matter.

11. It is well settled that at the stage of issuance of process, the Magistrate
is not required to conduct a detailed inquiry into the merits; however, he
must apply his mind to the material on record and be satisfied that
sufficient ground exists for proceeding. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that summoning of an accused is a serious matter and cannot be
undertaken in a mechanical manner. In Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT
of Delhi), (2012) 5 SCC 424, it was observed that though detailed reasons
are not required at the stage of issuance of summons, the order must
reflect application of mind and satisfaction as to the existence of a prima
facie case. Further, in Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad
Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420, it has been emphasized that the Magistrate
must carefully scrutinize the material placed on record and proceed only
upon being satisfied that sufficient grounds exist for issuance of process.

12. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it is
evident that the allegations made by the petitioner are serious in nature,
involving abduction, prolonged wrongful confinement, physical assault,
and fraudulent financial transactions over a considerable period of time.
However, such allegations are not supported by any contemporaneous or
independent material.

13. No medical record has been produced to substantiate the alleged
mental illness of the victim or the claim that he was subjected to physical
assault or found in an unconscious condition. In a case of prolonged
confinement and alleged violence, some medical evidence is necessary to
make out a sufficient ground for issuance of summons.

14. Further, with regard to the alleged loan transactions involving
                                                       A227 No. 5720 of 2025
                              4


mortgaging of the land of the complainant's father, the core allegation is
that the documents were signed by the victim under coercion during the
period of alleged confinement. This aspect is not supported by any
independent or any supporting material. No complaint was made at or
around the time when the documents were allegedly executed, nor when
the victim is stated to have returned in the year 2020. In the absence of
any timely assertion of coercion or any supporting material, the version
set up by the complainant that the signatures were obtained under force
does not inspire confidence at this stage. The delay in raising such
allegations, particularly in matters involving execution of financial
documents, assumes significance and goes to the root of the credibility of
the petitioner's case.

15. The statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. include
the statement of the complainant, the statement of the victim Ram Aasare
(P.W.-1), his brother Jagroop (P.W-2), and a villager Umashanker (P.W-
3). All of them support the case of abduction, confinement, and forced
signing of documents. However, P.W-1 and P.W-2 are close family
members. P.W-3 is a villager and appears to be deposing on the basis of
what was told to him. While their testimony cannot be discarded at this
stage, in the absence of any supporting material, the same does not by
itself disclose sufficient ground for proceeding.

16. It is also relevant that no FIR or missing person report was lodged in
2016 when the alleged abduction took place. There is also no complaint
made in 2020 when the victim was allegedly found in an unconscious
condition. In a case of this nature, involving long confinement and loan
transactions, some timely and objective material would normally be
expected. The absence of such material does not inspire confidence at this
stage in the petitioner's version at the stage of summoning.

17. At this stage, the Court is only required to examine whether the
material discloses sufficient grounds for proceeding and not whether the
allegations would ultimately result in conviction. An overall assessment
of the material placed on record indicates that the allegations remain
unsubstantiated at the threshold level and do not disclose sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused persons.
                                                                                             A227 No. 5720 of 2025
                                                                   5


                                    18. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has considered the statements
                                    recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and has recorded a reasoned
                                    finding that no sufficient ground exists for proceeding. The revisional
                                    court has further independently examined the record and has concurred
                                    with the said finding.

                                    19. This Court does not find any perversity, illegality, or non-
                                    consideration of material evidence in the impugned orders so as to
                                    warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

                                    20. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.



                                                                                          (Garima Prashad,J.)
                                    April 20, 2026
                                    Rakesh




Digitally signed by :-
RAKESH MEHTA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad