SAMEER GUPTA AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

              HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                    CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8238 of 2025

Sameer Gupta And 2 Others
                                                                     .....Appellant(s)
                                        Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                   .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)            :    Krishna Kumar Shukla, Snehlata Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)           :    Chandra Narayan Mishra, G.A.

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

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for opposite
party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14A (1) of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "S.C./S.T.
Act") has been filed to quash/set aside the order dated 6th June, 2025
passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Nagar in Special Complaint
Case No. 659 of 2023 (Ritesh Sonkar Vs. Sameer Gupta & Others), under
Section 323 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (da) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Mool
Ganj, District-Kanpur Nagar, whereby the appellants have been summoned.

3. In   the   instant   complaint       case,    it   has   been   stated   by    the
complainant/opposite party no.2 that on 16th November, 2022, at about 2:00-
2:30 p.m., his house being House No. 40/83 situated at Chhappar Mohal,
Moolganj, was informed about a fire. Upon arriving at the scene, the opposite
party no.2 and his brother found the entire house engulfed in flames. The
appellants operate a business dealing in plastic envelopes, plastic utensils,
paper, and glass, and also pack candles and other electrical equipment in the
said house. Due to a power outage, the above individuals, along with their
employees, were packing plastic and paper items using candles. Due to the
negligence of the above individuals, the fire engulfed the entire house,
resulting in significant financial loss to opposite party no.2 and damage to the
above house. When the opposite party no.2 complained to the appellants
about the negligent work done by them, the complainant along with his brother
were abused by using caste indicated words. They beat and threatened them
to kill them. The report of the opposite party no.2 was not filed regarding the
incident. On 27th March, 2023, at 2:00 p.m., near the Moolganj intersection,
the appellants, while abusing the opposite party no.2 by using caste indicated
words, ran to attack him, slapped and punched him, took twenty thousand
                                                           CRLA No. 8238 of 2025
                                 2

rupees from his pocket and threatened to kill him. After filing of the said
complaint, the statement of opposite party no.2 has been recorded under
Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of his witnesses, namely, Jitendra Mishra
and Sanjay Agarwal have been recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. as P.W.-1
and P.W.-2 respectively. Whereafter the impugned summoning order has
been passed. Hence the present criminal appeal.

4. By means of present criminal appeal, it has been stated by the appellants
that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case
with ulterior motive, as the present complaint case implicating the appellants
is false and fabricated. The present complaint case filed by opposite party
no.2 is nothing but a bundle of lie and the same has been lodged only for
exploiting the appellants by indulging their names in a fake, false and frivolous
case. The entire prosecution story as unfolded in the complaint case is
absolutely a self-made story projected by opposite party no.2 in order to
resolve his interest.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the opposite
party no.2 is a practicing lawyer who has purchased a building bearing
Building No. 45/83 from some Kapoor, in which several tenants already carry
on their business. He further submits that since he is the owner of that
building, he keeps harassing all the tenants, who are carrying on their
business in that building, in order to get the said building vacated from them.
In connection with the same, Khova Bajar Vyapar Mandal has lodged a
complaint before the Police Commissioner, Police Commissionerate, Kanpur
Nagar on 25th November, 2022 for taking legal action against the opposite
party no.2, which are at page nos. 41 to 43 of the paper book. In the said
complaint, it has been alleged that on 18th November, 2022 at around 10:22,
the opposite party no.2 came with his associates and threatened and abused
all the tenant- businessmen, saying that he is a lawyer and he knows all the
ways to get the house vacated and he will implicate each of them in a case
under the provisions of S.C./S.T. Act.

6. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that due to
scuffle took place between the appellants and the opposite party no.2, on the
recommendation of the Station House Officer Police Station-Moolganj, District
Kanpur dated 1st December, 2022, an order dated 25th December, 2022, for
challan of the appellants was passed by Assistant Commissioner of Police,
East Zone, Kanpur Nagar. In the said order also, it has been mentioned that
there is dispute between the appellants and opposite party no.2 for eviction of
the house no.45/83 and there is apprehension of threatening of law and order
situation.
                                                            CRLA No. 8238 of 2025
                                  3

7. It is then contended that for evicting the appellants from the said house, the
opposite party no.2 is using all kinds of illegal tactics to oust the appellants
from the said house and in connection with the same, opposite party no.2 has
filed suit no. 8762 of 2024 against the appellant no.1 and his father, namely,
Ram Niwas and Suit No. 8769 of 2024 against appellant no. 3 and Suit no.
8768 of 2024 against appellant no.2 which are still pending consideration
before the Additional District Magistrate (Civil Supply), Kanpur Nagar.

8. It is lastly stated by the learned counsel for the appellants that the dispute
between the parties relates civil in nature rather than criminal. The proper
remedy available to the opposite party no.2 to pursue his case in his pending
suits.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, submitted that the present
complaint proceedings initiated against the appellants are not only malicious
but also amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. On the cumulative
strength of the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted by learned counsel for
the appellants that the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case
are liable to be quashed by this Court.

10. Learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 have
opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants.
They further submits that complainant/opposite party no.2 and his witnesses
have also supported the versions as unfolded in the complaint filed by the
opposite party no.2. They again submits that since prima faice case is made
out against the accused-appellants, therefore, no interference at this stage is
called for by this appellate Court. As such, the present criminal appeal is liable
to be dismissed. However, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the
learned A.G.A. could not dispute that fact that for eviction of the appellants
from the house no. 45/83, there was scuffle took place between the appellants
and opposite party no.2 due to which the appellants were challaned and also
for evicting the appellants from the said house, the opposite party no.2 has
filed three suits which are pending consideration.

11. I have considered facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. and
perused the materiel available on record including the impugned order.

12. From the perusal of the version as unfolded in the statement recorded
under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the opposite party no.2 has stated that the
opposite party no.2 is a practitioner lawyer and goes to district court every
day. It has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the opposite party
no.2 and the learned A.G.A. that for the scuffle being taken place between the
                                                           CRLA No. 8238 of 2025
                                   4

appellants and opposite party no.2, the appellants were challenged under the
order of the Assistant Commissioner of Police dated 25th December, 2022
and the opposite party no.2 has filed three separate suits against the
appellants for their eviction from the house no. 45/83. It has also not been
dispute that in the complaint and the statements recorded under Section 200
and 202 Cr.P.C. it has been stated by the complainant and his witnesses that
appellants have abused the opposite party no.2 by using caste indicated
words and they also beat him but no medical examination report i.e. injury
report has been brought on record or mentioned in the instant complaint or
statements recorded under Sections 200 of complainant and 202 Cr.P.C. of
witnesses.

13. From the aforesaid facts, this Court finds that the dispute between the
parties is going on due to tenancy of the house no.45/83, where the opposite
party no.2 is owner and the appellants are tenants and the same appears to
be a civil dispute and not a criminal dispute.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mitesh Kumar Vs. State of
Karnataka & Ors. reported in 2021 AIR (Supreme Court) 5298 specifically in
paragraph no. 47, has held as under:

"Moreover, this Court has at innumerable instances expressed its disapproval
for imparting criminal color to a civil dispute, made merely to take advantage
of a relatively quick relief granted in a criminal case in contrast to a civil
dispute. Such an exercise is nothing but an abuse of the process of law which
must be discouraged in its entirety."

15. Learned Magistrate has passed a very cryptic order simply by saying that
the statement of complainant as well as witnesses recorded under Sections
200 and 202 CrPC are perused and accused are summoned such order per
se itself illegal which could not stand the test of law.

16. Reliance is also placed upon the judgement of this Court in the case of
Smt. Shiv Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in
2017 (2) JIC, 589, (All) (LB). Paragraph No. 10 of the aforesaid judgement is
relevant for the controversy in hand. The same is as under:-
"Learned Magistrate was required to atleast mention in the order about the
prima facie satisfaction for summoning the accused. The order must reflect
that the learned Magistrate has exercised his jurisdiction in accordance with
law after satisfying himself about the prima facie allegations made in the
complaint. The accused cannot be summoned mechanically merely by writing
that perused the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr. P. C."

17. A perusal of this impugned summoning order indicates that learned
Magistrate had noted in the impugned order the contents of complaint and
                                                             CRLA No. 8238 of 2025
                                  5

evidences u/s 200 and 202 CrPC but had neither any discussion of evidence
was made, nor was it considered as to what overt act had allegedly been
committed by accused. This contention of learned counsel for the appellants
cannot be ruled out that learned counsel have noted the contents of complaint
and statements without considering its probability or prima facie case, and
whether he had actually considered statements under Sections 200 and 202
CrPC or the documents of the original. At stage of summoning, the Magistrate
is not required to meticulously examine or evaluate the evidence. He is not
required to record detailed reasons. A brief order which indicate the
application of mind is all that is expected of him at that stage.

18. However, in impugned order there is nothing which may indicate that
learned Magistrate had even considered facts of the case in hand before
passing the summoning order. Impugned order clearly lacks the reflection of
application of judicial discretion or mind. Nothing is there which may show that
learned Magistrate, before passing of the order under challenge had
considered facts of the case and evidence or law. Therefore it appears that, in
fact, no judicial mind was applied before the passing of impugned order of
summoning. Such order cannot be accepted as a proper legal judicial order
passed after following due procedure of law.

19. In ruling "M/s. Pepsi Food Ltd. & another vs. Special Judicial
Magistrate & others, reported in 1998 UPCrR 118" Hon'ble Supreme Court
held :-

"Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. 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 that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case
and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations
made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support
thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing
charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator
at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning the
accused. Magistrate had to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record
and 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."

20. In "Paul George vs. State, reported in 2002 Cri.L.J. 996" Hon'ble
Supreme Court held:

"we feel that whatever be the outcome of the pleas raised by the appellant on
merit, the order disposing of the matter must indicate application of mind to the
case and some reasons be assigned for negating or accepting such pleas.- - -
- - It is true that it may depend upon the nature of the matter which is being
dealt with by the Court and the nature of the jurisdiction being exercised as to
                                                             CRLA No. 8238 of 2025
                                  6

in what manner the reasons may be recorded e.g. in an order of affirmance
detailed reasons or discussion may not be necessary but some brief indication
by the application of mind may be traceable to affirm an order would certainly
be required. Mere ritual of repeating the words or language used in the
provisions, saying that no illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error is found
in the judgment under challenge without even a whisper of the merits of the
matter or nature of pleas raised does not meet the requirement of decision of
a case judicially."

21. In S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla, reported in (2005) 8
SCC 89 the Apex Court had held as under:

"Section 203 of the Code empowers a Magistrate to dismiss a complaint
without even issuing a process. It uses the words "after considering" and "the
Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding".
These words suggest that the Magistrate has to apply his mind to a complaint
at the initial stage itself and see whether a case is made out against the
accused persons before issuing process to them on the basis of the complaint.
For applying his mind and forming an opinion as to whether there is sufficient
ground for proceeding, a complaint must make out a prima facie case to
proceed. This, in other words, means that a complaint must contain material to
enable the Magistrate to make up his mind for issuing process. If this were not
the requirement, consequences could be far-reaching. If a Magistrate had to
issue process in every case, the burden of work before the Magistrate as well
as the harassment caused to the respondents to whom process is issued
would be tremendous. Even Section 204 of the Code starts with the words "if
in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is
sufficient ground for proceeding". The words "sufficient ground for proceeding"
again suggest that ground should be made out in the complaint for proceeding
against the respondent. It is settled law that at the time of issuing of the
process the Magistrate is required to see only the allegations in the complaint
and where allegations in the complaint or the charge-sheet do not constitute
an offence against a person, the complaint is liable to be dismissed."

22.The Apex Court in the case of M.N. Ojha & Others Vs. Alok Kumar
Srivastava & Another reported in 2009 (13) SCC 623 has opined that it is
settled and needs no restatement that the saving of inherent powers of the
High Court in criminal matters is intended to achieve a salutary public
purpose.

23. From the perusal of the complaint as well as the statements of
complainant and her witnesses, it appears that the allegation made by the
opposite party no.2 against the appellants is purely a pressure tactics. The
opposite party no.2 is owner of house no. 45/83 and the appellants are
tenants in the said house. For eviction of the appellants, opposite party no.2
has already filed separate suits against the appellants for their eviction which
are still pending consideration. As such the proper remedy available to the
opposite party no.2 to pursue his pending suits

24. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, this Court finds that no prima facie
case is made out against the appellant. As such the impugned order as well
                                                                                              CRLA No. 8238 of 2025
                                                                    7

                                    as the entire criminal proceedings cannot be legally sustained and is liable to
                                    be quashed.

                                    25. Consequently, the summoning order dated 6th June, 2025 passed by the
                                    Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Nagar in Special Complaint Case No. 659
                                    of 2023 (Ritesh Sonkar Vs. Sameer Gupta & Others), under Section 323 I.P.C.
                                    and Section 3 (1) (da) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Mool Ganj, District-
                                    Kanpur Nagar is quashed.

                                    26. The present criminal appeal is allowed.

                                    May 6, 2026
                                    Sushil/-
                                                                                            (Madan Pal Singh,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad