Allahabad High Court
Sarika Pathak And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:76467
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8864 of 2024
Sarika Pathak And Others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Ajay Singh, Hitesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Ankit Kumar, G.A., Namit Kumar Sharma
Court No. - 53
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
2. The present criminal appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 19.05.2023 and order dated 15.07.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hathras in Complaint Case no. 509 of 2022 (Smt. Vimlesh v. Sarika Pathak and others), under section 504, 506 I.P.C. and section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Hathras Junction, District Hathras.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that Opposite Party No. 2, Smt. Vimlesh, has filed a false and fabricated application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was subsequently converted into a complaint case. Thereafter, statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded, and summons were issued vide order dated 19.05.2023 against Sarika Pathak, Sunita Pathak, Soni Pathak, Yatendra @ Guddu Pathak, Alankar Agnihotri, and Rakesh Agnihotri under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
4. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants, namely, Sarika Pathak, Suneeta Pathak and Soni Pathak.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that Opposite Party No. 2 had already moved an application before the competent authority at Hathras regarding the alleged incident dated 28.03.2022, though no specific date is mentioned in the said application. It is further submitted that, in her statement, the complainant has alleged that the incident occurred on 25.03.2022 at about 5:00 P.M., when she was present at her plot along with her husband and sons, Arvind, Abhishek, and Satendra. At that time, appellant Sarika Pathak allegedly demanded a passage through their plot, and upon objection, Sarika Pathak, Sunita Pathak, Mohni Pathak, Guddu, Chunmun, and Rakesh allegedly abused them and made caste-based remarks.
6. It is further alleged that the complainant submitted an application before the concerned police station. Thereafter, on 28.03.2022, certain persons (without specific names being mentioned) allegedly entered her house and threatened her to withdraw the application, failing which they would evict her from the village and grab her property, and also humiliated her by making caste-based remarks.
7. In support of the complaint, the statement of Maniram was recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., wherein he referred to the incident dated 25.03.2022 at about 5:00 P.M. and named Sharda Pathak, Sonu, Sunita, Rakesh, Alankar, and one unnamed person. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the said witness did not take the name of appellant Sarika Pathak and has made general allegations regarding abuse, caste-based remarks, and threats.
8. The statement of Priyanshu was also recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., wherein he stated that on 28.03.2022, Sarika Pathak allegedly set fire to wood kept on his plot on the saying of Alankar, the Pradhan.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that a toilet exists on their own land, and the complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 is being prevented from using the same, which is the root cause of the dispute. It is argued that there is no substance in the F.I.R., no such incident took place, and there are material inconsistencies between the statements of the complainant and those recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. It is also pointed out that P.W.-1 Maniram failed to recall the name of one of the accused persons.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 has submitted that the appellants are attempting to use the plot belonging to Opposite Party No. 2. It is further submitted that her husband has already filed Civil Suit No. 294 of 2021 (Deshraj vs. State of U.P. and another) for permanent injunction, seeking restraint against the defendants from using the said plot as a passage and from interfering with peaceful possession. The said suit was filed on 09.08.2021, and written statements have already been filed by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, namely the State of U.P. and the Gram Panchayat. The matter is presently sub judice before the competent civil court.
11. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sujoy Ghosh v. State of Jharkhand, 2026 INSC 267 (paras 13 and 14) that summoning of an accused is a serious matter and must be undertaken with due application of mind and caution. Para 13 and 14 are quoted hereinbelow:
"13. The principles governing summoning of an accused in a criminal case as well as parameters for quashing criminal proceedings are well-settled. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and 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 application of mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. The Magistrate must carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and determine whether any offence is prima facie made out. The Magistrate 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.
14. When an accused seeks quashing of either the FIR or criminal proceedings on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous, vexatious or malicious, the Court is duty bound to examine the matter with greater care. It will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case, over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, and try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation."
12. It is further submitted that the appellants have failed to produce any document showing ownership of the disputed plot. On the other hand, prima facie allegations appear to be made out against the appellants. The veracity, credibility, and reliability of the allegations are matters to be adjudicated by the learned trial court after appreciation of the entire evidence on record.
13. In view thereof, the criminal appeal is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.
(Abdul Shahid,J.) April 8, 2026 K.K. Maurya