HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2123 of 2026 Court No. - 51 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 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. 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the impugned 4. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Girish Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent(s) : Arvind Kumar Rai, G.A. Ritesh Kumar Srivastav .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) 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. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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 8. CRLA No. 2123 of 2026 2 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. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. May 5, 2026 pks CRLA No. 2123 of 2026 3 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad