HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10027 of 2025 Court No. - 51 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 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. 1. 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. 2. 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- 3. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ram Prakash Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Tushar Sharma And Another .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) 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. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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 7. CRLA No. 10027 of 2025 2 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. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 8. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. 9. April 23, 2026 pks CRLA No. 10027 of 2025 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad