HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4134 of 2024 Court No. - 86 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State, and Shri Parmeshwar Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no. 2, and perused the record. 3. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred for setting aside the impugned summoning order dated 21.02.2024, passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Maharajganj, in Complaint Case No. 155 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of the said Act, Police Station Paniyara, District Maharajganj. 4. According to the complaint, the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste community. It is alleged that on 19.07.2023 at about 9:30 a.m., while he was cleaning the school premises, the appellants armed with sticks reached there, hurled caste-based abuses, assaulted him, snatched his gold chain, and threatened to kill him. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated. The alleged incident of 19.07.2023 was reported after an unexplained delay of more than two months, the complaint having been filed on 26.09.2023. It is further submitted that the land in question is recorded as Khel Maidan (Playground) and that the complainant was attempting to encroach upon public land. On such issue, appellant nos. 1 Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Anil Kumar Yadav, Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Bhaju Ram Pprasad Sharma, Parmeshwar Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Parmeshwar Yadav Izahar And Another .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) and 2 had earlier lodged FIR No. 49 of 2012 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC against the complainant's father, in which charge-sheet has been submitted. The present complaint, therefore, is nothing but a counter- blast to that earlier FIR. 6. It is further urged that the complaint discloses no injury; the dispute is purely civil in nature concerning possession over the land, and the learned court below has summoned the appellants mechanically, without proper application of judicial mind, merely on the basis of uncorroborated allegations. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for respondent no.2 opposed the appeal and contended that the complaint prima facie discloses cognizable offences and that the summoning order suffers from no illegality. 8. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the record, this Court finds that the complaint was instituted after considerable delay without any plausible explanation. The materials on record indicate that there exists a long-standing dispute between the parties concerning the land in question, recorded as a playground. The prior criminal case lodged by appellant nos. 1 and 2 against the complainant's father in 2012 further lends substance to the appellants' contention that the present proceedings are retaliatory in nature. 9. It is well-settled that before issuing process under Section 204 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate must apply judicial mind to the facts and materials placed before him and record his subjective satisfaction that a prima facie case exists. The impugned order dated 21.02.2024, however, does not reflect such consideration and appears to have been passed in a routine and mechanical manner. 10. In Kallu Nat alias Mayank Kumar Nagar vs. State of U.P., 2025 INSC 930 (decided on 05 August 2025), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "a summoning order must reflect application of mind to both facts and law; the Magistrate cannot act as a silent spectator but must record a reasoned satisfaction before issuing process." Similarly, in J.M. Laboratories v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2025 INSC 127), the Apex Court reiterated that a "totally non-speaking summoning order is liable to be set aside as it shows non-application of mind." 11. Further, in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, CRLA No. 4134 of 2024 2 and reaffirmed in Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330, the Supreme Court held that where the complaint is manifestly mala fide, retaliatory, or a cloak for civil dispute, the High Court may quash the proceedings to prevent abuse of process. The present case squarely falls within those parameters. 12. In Hitesh Verms vs. State of Uttrakhand (2020) 10 SCC 710, the Supreme Court held that where the dispute arises out of a property or civil dispute and is not on account of complainant's caste, the ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act are not attracted. The Court observed that unless the insult or intimidation is on the ground of caste and in public view, mere civil disagreement cannot constitute an offence under the Act. 13. Applying the aforesaid principles, this Court finds that the learned Special Judge has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him with due judicial scrutiny. The impugned order being cryptic and passed mechanically, and the underlying dispute being civil and retaliatory in nature, the summoning order cannot be sustained in law. 14. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is allowed. 15. The impugned summoning order dated 21.02.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Maharajganj, in Complaint Case No.155 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Paniyara, District Maharajganj, is hereby quashed. October 15, 2025 Ajeet CRLA No. 4134 of 2024 3 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad