Allahabad High Court
Dhrupchandra Jaiswal And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:78400 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6622 of 2023 Dhrupchandra Jaiswal And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) Versus State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bishram Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Ram Chandra Maurya Court No. - 89 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Ram Chandra Maurya, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and Shri Devesh Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State are present.
2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following main prayer :-
"(a). issue an order or direction to set aside the summoning order dated 07.03.2020, by which petitioner no.1 summoned by the court, under section 323, 354 IPC and petitioner nos.2 and 3 summoned under section 323 IPC passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division)/F.T.C.-I/A.C.J.M, Room No.1, Deoria in Case No.396/2019 (Mamta Devi Versus Dhrupchandra) and judgment and order dated 19.4.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act) Room No.4, Deoria in Criminal Revision No.101 of 2022, (Dhrupchandra Jaiswal Versus Mamta Jaiswala and another) under Sections 323, 354 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali District Deoria."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were falsely implicated by respondent no.2, who instituted Criminal Complaint Case No.396 of 2019 (Mamta Devi vs. Dhrupchandra) in which petitioner no.1 was summoned to face trial for offences under Section 323, 354 IPC, while petitioner nos.2 and 3 were summoned for offence under Section 323 IPC. Learned counsel submitted that respondent no.2 is daughter-in-law of petitioner no.1 and wife of Anand Kumar. Anand Kumar is real son of petitioner no.1. He submitted that wife of petitioner no.1 was owner of a house which was jointly shared by petitioners as well as respondent no.2 and her husband. Certain dispute between the family members arose which compelled the petitioners to partition the house. Accordingly, a partition suit for separating their shares in the house owned by late wife of petitioner no.1 was filed by daughter of petitioner no.1 before the concerned civil court. An injunction order was granted in the said suit in favour of petitioners. Despite existence of said injunction granted by the civil court, the husband of respondent no.2 managed to get his name mutated against the disputed house. Petitioner no.1 thereafter moved a recall application for setting aside the mutation entry in favour of the husband of respondent no.2. Said recall application filed by petitioners was allowed.
4. Learned counsel further submitted that aggrieved by the order allowing the recall application of the petitioners, a revision was preferred by husband of respondent no.2, which was dismissed. When respondent no.2 and her husband failed to obtain any relief from any of the courts, then they maliciously instituted criminal proceedings agaisnt petitioner no.1 by making allegations of molestation and outraging the dignity of respondent no.2. It was submitted that present criminal proceeding has been instituted with a malafide intention to grab the house which infact is joint property of not only the petitioners but also respondent no.2 and other family members. He submitted that the petitioners have fairly stated in the partition suit that husband of respondent no.2 has also 1/6th share in the said house. He submitted that a proceeding actuated with malafide intention should be set aside. Aggrieved by the summoning order dated 7.3.2020 passed in Criminal Complaint Case No.396 of 2019, petitioner no.1 preferred Criminal Revision No.101 of 2022 (Dhrupchandra Jaiswal vs. Mamata Jaiswal and Anr.) and the same was dismissed.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of judgments has held that summoning of an accused in criminal prosecution is a serious issue. A court should not easily summon an accused person on bald allegations. If there is any evidence to show that allegations in a complaint case or criminal proceedings are actuated with malafide and the proceedings have been initiated with a view to falsely implicate an innocent person, then the court should be cautious before summoning the accused person. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi & Ors.; (1976) 3 SCC 736 and U.P. Pollution Control Board vs. M/s. Mohan Meankins Ltd. & Ors.; (2000) 3 SCC 745 as well as judgment of this Court in Mahboob & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Anr.; 2020 (3) JIC 514 (All). Learned counsel submitted that both orders passed by trial court as well as by revisional court suffer from gross illegality and both courts have failed to appreciate that allegations levelled against petitioner no.1 are unusual and improbable. Hence, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside.
6. Learned counsel for the private respondent no.2 submitted that the petitioners have neither filed the statements of respondent no.2 and her witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. nor have furnished the inquiry report. He further submitted that defence of accused cannot be considered at the stage of summoning under Section 204 Cr.P.C. A court, while summoning an accused person under Section 204 Cr.P.C., has to primarily satisfy itself that whether the allegations in the complaint and the substantiating statements of complainant and his/her witnesses are sufficient to proceed against the accused person and if the court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out against the accused, then it can straightaway summon the accused to face trial without considering the probability or any of the defences which can be raised by the accused in a criminal trial. Evidences which should be tendered only at the later stage of trial cannot be considered at the earlier stage of summoning an accused person under Section 204 Cr.P.C. Hence, this petition is bereft of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records including the order dated 7.3.2020 passed in Complaint Case No.396 of 2019 as well as the order dated 19.4.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No.101 of 2022.
8. Perusal of the impugned order dated dated 7.3.2020 reflects that complainant and her witnesses have consistently supported the prosecution story. A perusal of all those statements mentioned in the order does not show any inconsistencies or material contradiction so as to discard the allegations mentioned in the complaint. Therefore, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by the trial court in its order dated 7.3.2020, which were later on upheld by the revisional court by order dated 19.4.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No.101 of 2022.
9. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Anil Kumar-X,J.) April 9, 2026 SK