Allahabad High Court
RITESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- MADAN PAL SINGH
Holding
The summoning order and the ensuing criminal proceedings are unsustainable and are set aside as the dispute is civil in nature and amounts to malicious prosecution.
Summary
The appellant Ritesh Kumar Srivastav challenged a summoning order dated 5 June 2025 issued by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act) in Varanasi, which had proceeded against him under Sections 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(da) and 3(1)(dha) of the SC/ST Act. The complaint alleged caste‑based abuse linked to a disputed land‑transaction, but the appellant contended that the matter was essentially civil, that he was a minor at the time of the alleged transactions, and that he was on official duty during the alleged incident. The trial court had recorded statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and summoned the appellant without addressing these defenses. The High Court observed that no injury was proved, the dispute centred on possession of land—a civil issue—and the appellant’s alibi was corroborated by RTI evidence, rendering the criminal proceedings a case of malicious prosecution. Consequently, the Court set aside the summoning order and the entire proceedings, allowing the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the summoning order under Sections 504, 506 IPC and the SC/ST Act is maintainable given the civil nature of the land‑possession dispute.
- Whether the alleged conduct constitutes an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
- Whether the proceedings amount to malicious prosecution.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 156(3), 200, 202, 80
- Indian Penal Code — s. 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14A(1), 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha)
Subjects
- SC/ST Act
- malicious prosecution
- civil dispute
- land possession
- summoning order
- IPC 504
- IPC 506
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2123 of 2026
Ritesh Kumar Srivastav
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Girish Kumar Gupta
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Arvind Kumar Rai, G.A.
Court No. - 51
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Heard Sri Girish Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri
Arvind Kumar Rai, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned
AGA for the State, and perused the record.
2. The present appeal under Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been
preferred against the summoning order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the
learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Varanasi, as well as the entire
proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No. 366 of 2023, under
Sections 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) of the SC/ST
Act, Police Station Chitaipur, District Varanasi.
3. The present case arises out of a complaint filed by opposite party no. 2
on 16.08.2023 before the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act),
Varanasi, alleging that an incident involving abuse by use of caste-
indicative words occurred on 25.07.2023 at about 6:00 PM, and it is
pertinent to note that the complaint was instituted after a delay of 22
days without any plausible explanation, and the complaint also narrates
an alleged property transaction, wherein the complainant claims to
have purchased 1000 sq. ft. of land on 14.11.2016 and further entered
into an agreement for a larger parcel of land measuring 2606 sq. ft.
with one Rajesh Kumar Vishwakarma, making various payments
between the years 2011 and 2017, and it is alleged that despite such
payments, the sale deed of the remaining land was not executed, and
earlier, the complainant had also filed an application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C., which was treated as a complaint case and dismissed
on 17.06.2023 due to non-prosecution, and thereafter, the present
complaint came to be filed, and after recording statements under
Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act),
Varanasi, vide order dated 05.06.2025, summoned the appellant under
Sections 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(da) and 3(1)(dha) of the
SC/ST Act.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the impugned
CRLA No. 2123 of 2026
2
summoning order is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and has been passed
without proper application of judicial mind, and it is submitted that the
entire dispute, as disclosed from the complaint itself, is predominantly
civil in nature arising out of an alleged property transaction, and the
criminal proceedings have been maliciously initiated as a counterblast
to the civil suit instituted by the appellant on 09.08.2022, which is still
pending.
5. It is further contended that the appellant has no concern whatsoever
with the alleged property dealings, nor has he received any
consideration, and even as per the complaint, most of the alleged
transactions took place when the appellant was a minor and after the
death of his mother, thereby rendering the allegations inherently
improbable, and it is also argued that the statements recorded under
Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. suffer from material contradictions and
inconsistencies, and no medical evidence has been brought on record
to substantiate the alleged incident.
6. Learned counsel further submits that at the relevant time of the alleged
incident, the appellant was discharging official duties at the DRM
Office, Varanasi, from 09:30 AM to 06:00 PM, which is duly
supported by RTI information, thus falsifying the allegations, and it is
also urged that the learned court below failed to consider such
unimpeachable defence material and passed the summoning order
mechanically without recording satisfaction regarding sufficient
grounds to proceed, and lastly, it is submitted that the appellant has no
criminal history and has been falsely implicated due to ulterior motives
and personal vendetta.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submits that the
complainant purchased 1000 square feet of land on 14.11.2016 situated
at Vishwakarma Nagar Colony, Chitaipur, from Lalita Srivastava,
wherein Rajesh Vishwakarma acted as a property dealer, and that an
amount of Rs. 1,92,600/- was paid to Rajesh Vishwakarma towards the
sale consideration and possession of the land; however, a proper
receipt was issued only for Rs. 1,75,000/-, and no receipt was provided
for the remaining amount of Rs. 17,600/-, and although possession of
1000 square feet of land was delivered, possession of the remaining
1600 square feet has not been given despite payment of consideration.
8. It is further submitted that the last payment of Rs. 25,000/- was made
on 11.10.2017, but thereafter the said persons have not been ready to
execute the sale deed and have been avoiding the same on one pretext
or another, and that on 11.05.2022, Ritesh, Rajesh Vishwakarma and
others came to the complainant’s house, abused him, and extended
threats, and also served a notice under Section 80 Cr.P.C. asking him
to vacate the land on the basis of the receipt, along with threats to his
life, and the complainant has further stated that he is still ready and
willing to get the sale deed executed, but the said persons are now
CRLA No. 2123 of 2026
3
demanding execution at the prevailing higher market rate, and that
there exists no agreement regarding possession of the land, though he
claims to have made payments from time to time, and that the accused
persons have threatened to demolish the structure standing on the land
in his possession, in the presence of his family members.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears from the
complaint that there is a dispute between the parties regarding
possession of the land, and so far as the amount alleged to have been
paid by opposite party no. 2 is concerned, the same has neither been
paid to Lalita Srivastava nor to Ritesh Kumar Srivastava, and the
appellant has categorically stated that he does not know Rajesh
Vishwakarma, to whom the said amount is alleged to have been paid
by opposite party no. 2, and moreover, on the date of the alleged
incident, the appellant was discharging official duties at the DRM
Office, Varanasi, from 09:30 AM to 06:00 PM, which is duly
supported by RTI information, and it is also noteworthy that no
eviction suit has been filed by opposite party no. 2, and if he claims to
be in possession on the basis of an oral agreement and alleges
interference by the appellant, he ought to have filed a suit for
injunction.
10. Admittedly, no injury has been sustained by opposite party no. 2, and
from the facts and circumstances of the case, it transpires that the
dispute between the parties relates to possession of land, which is
purely civil in nature, and further, at the time of the alleged incident,
the appellant was discharging official duties at the DRM Office,
Varanasi, from 09:30 AM to 06:00 PM, as supported by RTI
information, and the present proceedings appear to be a case of
malicious prosecution on the part of opposite party no. 2.
11. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the
learned trial court summoning the appellant under Sections 504 and
506 IPC is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set
aside.
12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, and the summoning order dated
05.06.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act),
Varanasi, as well as the entire proceedings arising out of Complaint
Case No. 366 of 2023, under Sections 504, 506 IPC and Sections
3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) of the SC/ST Act, are hereby set aside.
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
May 5, 2026
pks
Digitally signed by :-
PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…