TUSHAR SHARMA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10027 of 2025

Tushar Sharma And Another
                                                             .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                           .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)                          :    Ram Prakash
Counsel for Respondent(s)                         :    G.A.

Court No. - 51
                  HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.



   1. Heard Sri Ram Prakash, learned counsel for the appellants, and the
     learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record. A compliance
     affidavit has been filed by Sri Ashutosh Pandey, learned A.G.A., in
     which it is stated that notice was served upon opposite party no. 2, but
     he refused to accept it. Accordingly, the notice is presumed to have
     been served by way of refusal.

   2. The present criminal appeal has been filed challenging the legality and
     correctness of the impugned summoning order dated 06.10.2025
     passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bulandshahr in
     Complaint Case No. 17 of 2023 (Deepak Kumar vs. Tushar Sharma
     and another), whereby the appellants have been summoned for
     offences under Section 504 IPC and Sections 3(1)(da) and 3(1)(dha) of
     the SC/ST Act.

   3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant/opposite party
     no. 2 alleged that on 10.01.2023 at about 10:00 A.M., when he visited
     Canara Bank, Anoopshahr, the appellants, who were posted as bank
     officials, misbehaved with him, used abusive language including caste-
     related remarks, and threatened him. An application under Section
     156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved, which was treated as a complaint by the
     trial court vide order dated 10.05.2023. Thereafter, the statement of the
     complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was recorded, and an inquiry
     under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was conducted. The inquiry report
     submitted by the Investigating Officer, based on CCTV footage and
     statements of bank employees, allegedly found the allegations to be
     false and unsubstantiated; however, the learned Special Judge
     proceeded to summon the appellants by the impugned order dated
     06.10.2025. It has further come on record that the father of the
     complainant had availed a loan from Canara Bank, Anoopshahr
     branch, which had become a Non-Performing Asset due to non-
                                                      CRLA No. 10027 of 2025
                             2


  payment of dues, and recovery proceedings including issuance of legal
  notices were initiated by the bank, and it is alleged by the appellants
  that the present complaint has been filed as a counterblast to such
  recovery proceedings.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned
  summoning order is illegal, arbitrary, and has been passed without
  application of judicial mind. It is contended that the essential
  ingredients of Section 504 IPC and Sections 3(1)(da) and 3(1)(dha) of
  the SC/ST Act are not made out from the allegations and there is no
  material to show that any alleged act was committed in public view or
  with intent to humiliate the complainant on the basis of caste. It is
  further submitted that the incident allegedly took place inside a bank
  office during official working hours and the appellants were
  discharging their official duties; the inquiry conducted under Section
  202 Cr.P.C. clearly exonerates the appellants and finds the allegations
  false and motivated, yet the same has been ignored without assigning
  reasons; the complaint is mala fide and has been filed only to
  pressurize the appellants in connection with loan recovery proceedings
  arising out of the default committed in repayment of the loan taken by
  the father of the complainant; no independent witness has supported
  the prosecution case and the entire case rests on the uncorroborated
  testimony of the complainant; and sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.
  has not been obtained although the alleged acts were performed in
  discharge of official duties.

5. Upon consideration of the record, it appears that the learned trial court,
  while passing the summoning order, has not adequately considered the
  inquiry report under Section 202 Cr.P.C., which prima facie
  disbelieves the allegations, nor the surrounding circumstances
  indicating a prior financial dispute between the parties arising out of
  the loan account of the complainant’s father, nor has it recorded
  satisfaction regarding the essential ingredients of the alleged offences,
  nor assigned reasons while disregarding the inquiry report. It is settled
  law that summoning an accused is a serious matter and the court is
  required to apply judicial mind to the material on record and record
  satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out; however, the impugned
  order does not reflect due consideration of the material evidence and
  appears to have been passed in a mechanical manner.

6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the
  considered opinion that the impugned summoning order dated
  06.10.2025 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is liable to be set
  aside.

7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 06.10.2025 passed by the
  learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bulandshahr in Complaint Case
  No. 17 of 2023 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to
  the learned trial court to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after
                                                                                               CRLA No. 10027 of 2025
                                                                       3


                                            affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties and upon due
                                            consideration of the entire material available on record, including the
                                            inquiry report under Section 202 Cr.P.C.

                                          8. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
                                            merits of the case.

                                          9. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.




                                                                                             (Madan Pal Singh,J.)
                                    April 23, 2026
                                    pks




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