SURAJ DEEN ALIAS SURAJDEEN VISHWAKARMA AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                    CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10510 of 2025

Suraj Deen Alias Surajdeen Vishwakarma And 2 Others
                                                                     .....Appellant(s)
                                       Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                   .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)                    :   Daya Shankar Vishwakarama
Counsel for Respondent(s)                   :   G.A., Sakshi Srivastava

Court No. - 53
                            HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2
Ms. Sakshi Srivastava and the learned AGA for the State.

2. The vakalatnama filed by Ms. Sakshi Srivastava on behalf of opposite party no.2 in
the registry on 17.11.2025 is not on record. Registry shall place the same on record.

3. The present criminal appeal has been preferred against the summoning order dated
23.5.2025, passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Fatehpur in Complaint Case
No. 149 of 2021 (Anil Kumar Vs. Surajdeen Vishwakarma and others), whereby the
appellants have been summoned to face trial for the offences under Section 323, 504,
506 IPC and Section 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station
Kalyanpur, District Fatehpur.

4. As per contents of the complaint/application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C dated
4.1.2020, it is submitted by the opposite party no.2 in the said complaint that he is
'mason' (Rajmistri). It is alleged that there was an agreement between the appellant-
Surajdeen Vishwakarma with the complainant in the year 2018 for construction of
boundary wall of government market. It was witnessed by Rakesh Yadav and Umesh.
Surajdeen is the Gram Pradhan at Meerpur Kurusti Gram Sabha Azamabad Bhainsahi.
The complainant constructed the entire boundary wall of the government market on
his own expenses of around Rs. 1,50,000/- whereas, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was
paid by Surajdeen to the complainant in February, 2018. He assured that rest money
would be paid after receiving the funds from the government. The complainant
consistently keep in touch with Surajdeen, but he did not pay the money and said that
your amount of Rs. 1,40,000/ is saved with me as a trustee. As soon as I got the
amount, I shall pay the same. The complainant got this information on 17.2.2020 that
the Gram Pradhan, Surajdeen has received the amount from the government, then he
went at around 3.00 p.m to his house and demanded his money. Then he told that he
did not get any amount. The complainant told that I had enquired that you had already
received the money. Then Surajdeen hurled abuses to the complainant to which the
                                                                CRLA No. 10510 of 2025
                                    2

complainant objected. At that time there were Pappu and Navneet were present. They
used casteism language and beaten to the complainant with legs and fists and
threatened that if you made any complaint, he will be killed. I tried to lodge the report
at the police station Malwa, but they have not registered the FIR, hence the present
application has been submitted before the Court.

5. The complainant further relied on the statement of himself under Section 200
Cr.P.C and statement recorded under Section 202 of PW-1 Rakesh Yadav and PW-2-
Umesh Kumar. All the witnesses have supported the said incident.

6. The complainant-Anil Kumar has submitted in his statement under Section 200
Cr.P.C that talk of construction of boundary wall of government market was made for
an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-. He completed the entire construction in January, 2012.
Whereas, PW-1,Rakesh Yadav and PW-2 Umesh Kumar have stated in their
statements under Section 202 Cr.P.C. that talks took place for construction of
boundary wall of government market in January 2018. The complainant told that it
was took place in the year 2012 in his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The
complainant in his application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. also stated that the
agreement took place for construction of boundary wall of government market in the
year 2018. He alleged that further incident took place on 17.2.2020 at 3.00 pm in the
house of the appellants and there were the persons, father and his two sons and they
hurled abuses, but there has been no medical report of 17.2.2020 or of any other date
is on record. The report brought by the trial court from the concerned police station, it
was brought to the knowledge that Surajdeen was never Pradhan for the period 2015-
2020.

7. The opposite party no.2/complainant has implicated all the members of the family,
father and his two sons in the said offence. In the complaint, he stated that agreement
for constructions of boundary wall at government market took place in the year 2018,
but in his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C, he told that it was took place in the
year 2012, whereas the supporting evidences produced by the complainant as PW-1
and PW-2 had been recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. in which they have stated that
the agreement aforesaid took place in the year 2018. There is no consistency in the
statement of the complainant to the witnesses under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.
There is also no consistency even in the complaint and thereafter statement under
Section 200 Cr.P.C. of the complainant and statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C. of
PW-1 and PW-2.

8. There is huge delay. There is neither injury report nor any medical evidence nor any
document of aforesaid agreement or details of expenditure and purchase of material
which are alleged to be invested by the complainant.

9. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sujoy Ghosh vs. State of Jharkhand
and Another, reported in 2026 INSC 267, in paragraphs 13 and 14 as follows:
                                                                 CRLA No. 10510 of 2025
                                     3

      "13. The principles governing the summoning of an accused in a criminal
      case, as well as the parameters for quashing criminal proceedings, are
      well settled. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious
      matter, and criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course.
      It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support
      his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion.
      The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect
      application of mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto.
      The Magistrate must carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record
      and determine whether any offence is prima facie made out. The
      Magistrate may even himself put questions to the complainant and his
      witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or
      otherwise, and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all
      or any of the accused. (See: Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial
      Magistrate & Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 749; Vikas Chandra v. State of Uttar
      Pradesh & Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1534.)

      14. When an accused seeks quashing of either the FIR or criminal
      proceedings on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly
      frivolous, vexatious, or malicious, the Court is duty-bound to examine the
      matter with greater care. It will not be just enough for the Court to look
      into the averments made in the FIR/ complaint alone for the purpose of
      ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged
      offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the
      Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances
      emerging from the record of the case, over and above the averments, and,
      if need be, with due care and circumspection, and try to read between the
      lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
      Code of Criminal Procedure or Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
      need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take
      into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/
      registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the the course
      of investigation. (See: Mohd. Wajid & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh &
      Ors., (2023) 20 SCC 219)."

10. The present criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14A of SC/ST Act, 1989.
Section Section 14A provides that 'notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure,1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence
or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an Exclusive Special
Court, to the High Court both on facts and on law.

11. The entire issues raised by the complainant in his complainant and supporting
evidence has been considered by this Court. This Court find that there is no prima
                                                                                                    CRLA No. 10510 of 2025
                                                                        4

                                    facie truth appeared to be in the complaint of opposite party no.2.

                                    12. In view thereof, the said summoning order dated 23.5.2025, passed by learned
                                    Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Fatehpur in Complaint Case No. 149 of 2021 (Anil Kumar
                                    Vs. Surajdeen Vishwakarma and others) is hereby set aside.

                                    13. The criminal appeal is accordingly, allowed.

                                    March 26, 2026
                                    sfa/
                                                                                                          (Abdul Shahid,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
SYED FAHEEM AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad