HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5720 of 2025 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.04.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi in Complaint Case No. 2622 of 2022, as well as the order dated 22.05.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kaushambi in Criminal Revision No. 64 of 2023, whereby the complaint preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the said order has been affirmed in revision. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that his father, namely Ram Aasare, was working as a Chowkidar in a school. It is alleged that he was suffering from mental illness and that on 20.02.2016, the accused persons, namely Satendra @ Pahalwan Singh Yadav, Virendra Singh Yadav, Surendra Singh Yadav and Hiralal, deceitfully abducted him from his place of work. According to the petitioner, after such abduction, the victim was taken to unknown locations and was wrongfully confined for a prolonged period extending over several years. 4. It is further alleged that during the said period of confinement, the accused persons subjected the victim to physical assault and coercion and, in collusion with certain bank officials, procured multiple loans in his name between 22.03.2016 and 12.01.2017 by forging documents and forcibly obtaining his signatures on various papers, including documents Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Binod Kumar Vishwakarma, Pramod Kumar Katiyar, Yug Raj Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Lalloo Pal .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) relating to mortgaging agricultural land bearing Arazi Nos. 554, 749, 750, 844, 847 and 879. 5. According to the petitioner, after about four years, on 20.07.2020, his father was found lying in an unconscious condition and, after regaining consciousness, disclosed that he had been abducted, wrongfully confined, assaulted, and compelled to sign documents for obtaining loans. An application was moved before the police authorities on 22.03.2022 narrating the aforesaid facts. The petitioner submits that despite disclosure of such cognizable offences, no FIR was lodged and no effective action was taken by the police authorities. 6. The record reflects that the petitioner had earlier moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was treated as a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. by order dated 01.12.2020, but the same was dismissed on 21.02.2022 for non-prosecution. Thereafter, the present complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was instituted on 18.05.2022 again on similar allegations. 7. The statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and statements of witnesses, including the victim, were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, upon consideration of the material, dismissed the complaint holding that no sufficient ground existed for proceeding. The revisional court affirmed the said finding. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. clearly disclose commission of cognizable offences and that the courts below have erred in not issuing process. It is contended that at the stage of summoning, only a prima facie view is required to be taken. 9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that the allegations are not supported by any reliable material. It is contended that the entire case rests only on oral statements of interested parties, without any corroboration or proof of alleged forgery or coercion. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate, after recording statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., has rightly found absence of sufficient A227 No. 5720 of 2025 2 ground to proceed, and the revisional court, upon re-appreciation of the material, has affirmed the said finding. Reliance is placed on the settled position of law that summoning is not a mechanical exercise and requires application of mind to ascertain existence of a prima facie case. It is thus submitted that no illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error is made out warranting interference. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon perusal of the record, this Court proceeds to examine the matter. 11. It is well settled that at the stage of issuance of process, the Magistrate is not required to conduct a detailed inquiry into the merits; however, he must apply his mind to the material on record and be satisfied that sufficient ground exists for proceeding. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that summoning of an accused is a serious matter and cannot be undertaken in a mechanical manner. In Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 5 SCC 424, it was observed that though detailed reasons are not required at the stage of issuance of summons, the order must reflect application of mind and satisfaction as to the existence of a prima facie case. Further, in Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420, it has been emphasized that the Magistrate must carefully scrutinize the material placed on record and proceed only upon being satisfied that sufficient grounds exist for issuance of process. 12. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the allegations made by the petitioner are serious in nature, involving abduction, prolonged wrongful confinement, physical assault, and fraudulent financial transactions over a considerable period of time. However, such allegations are not supported by any contemporaneous or independent material. 13. No medical record has been produced to substantiate the alleged mental illness of the victim or the claim that he was subjected to physical assault or found in an unconscious condition. In a case of prolonged confinement and alleged violence, some medical evidence is necessary to make out a sufficient ground for issuance of summons. 14. Further, with regard to the alleged loan transactions involving A227 No. 5720 of 2025 3 mortgaging of the land of the complainant's father, the core allegation is that the documents were signed by the victim under coercion during the period of alleged confinement. This aspect is not supported by any independent or any supporting material. No complaint was made at or around the time when the documents were allegedly executed, nor when the victim is stated to have returned in the year 2020. In the absence of any timely assertion of coercion or any supporting material, the version set up by the complainant that the signatures were obtained under force does not inspire confidence at this stage. The delay in raising such allegations, particularly in matters involving execution of financial documents, assumes significance and goes to the root of the credibility of the petitioner's case. 15. The statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. include the statement of the complainant, the statement of the victim Ram Aasare (P.W.-1), his brother Jagroop (P.W-2), and a villager Umashanker (P.W- 3). All of them support the case of abduction, confinement, and forced signing of documents. However, P.W-1 and P.W-2 are close family members. P.W-3 is a villager and appears to be deposing on the basis of what was told to him. While their testimony cannot be discarded at this stage, in the absence of any supporting material, the same does not by itself disclose sufficient ground for proceeding. 16. It is also relevant that no FIR or missing person report was lodged in 2016 when the alleged abduction took place. There is also no complaint made in 2020 when the victim was allegedly found in an unconscious condition. In a case of this nature, involving long confinement and loan transactions, some timely and objective material would normally be expected. The absence of such material does not inspire confidence at this stage in the petitioner's version at the stage of summoning. 17. At this stage, the Court is only required to examine whether the material discloses sufficient grounds for proceeding and not whether the allegations would ultimately result in conviction. An overall assessment of the material placed on record indicates that the allegations remain unsubstantiated at the threshold level and do not disclose sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused persons. A227 No. 5720 of 2025 4 18. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has considered the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and has recorded a reasoned finding that no sufficient ground exists for proceeding. The revisional court has further independently examined the record and has concurred with the said finding. 19. This Court does not find any perversity, illegality, or non- consideration of material evidence in the impugned orders so as to warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 20. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. April 20, 2026 Rakesh A227 No. 5720 of 2025 5 (Garima Prashad,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH MEHTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad