Allahabad High Court
Raghuveer Tiwari And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:75772
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11847 of 2024
Raghuveer Tiwari And 3 Others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Lavkush Dixit
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Amit Kumar Singh, G.A., Km Astha
Court No. - 53
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Case called out in the revised list. Learned counsel for the appellants and the learned A.G.A. for the State are present. However, none has appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2 despite sufficient service.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. The instant criminal appeal has been filed with a prayer to allow this appeal and set aside the impugned summoning order dated 02.08.2024 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Etawah, in Case No. 104 of 2024 (Asha Devi vs. Raghuveer Tiwari and others), under Sections 323, 504, and 506 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (P.A.) Act, 1989, Police Station Badpura, District Etawah, whereby the appellants have been summoned to face trial in the aforesaid case.
4. Brief facts of the case are that opposite party no. 2/complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., alleging that she belongs to the Scheduled Caste category (Jatav) and is a poor woman whose husband is a daily-wage labourer. During consolidation (Chakbandi) proceedings, a portion designated as ‘Harijan settlement’ was left unallotted in front of her house. After the conclusion of the proceedings, the complainant took possession of a plot measuring 52 30 feet situated in front of her house and has been in continuous possession since 01.05.2002. It is further alleged that the complainant uses the said plot for tying her cattle. The accused persons, namely, Raghuveer Tiwari and others, are alleged to bear enmity towards the complainant.
5. It is also alleged that on 04.07.2013 at about 12:30 p.m., the accused persons came to the said plot, abused the complainant and her family members using caste-related remarks, damaged the property, and thereafter forcibly entered her house and assaulted her. Upon an alarm being raised, villagers gathered at the spot, whereupon the accused persons fled after extending threats. Due to fear, the complainant could not immediately approach the police.
6. Subsequently, on 05.07.2013, the complainant submitted a written complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah, but no action was taken. Hence, she filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
7. During the investigation, the statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and a final report was submitted. Upon objection by the complainant, further investigation was ordered, and a second final report was submitted. Thereafter, the complainant filed a protest petition on 11.08.2023, which was treated as a complaint vide order dated 02.02.2024.
8. Subsequently, statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The complainant and an eyewitness supported the prosecution case. After considering the material on record, the learned trial court passed the impugned summoning order dated 02.08.2024.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order is illegal and has been passed without proper application of mind. It is contended that the allegations are false and relate to an incident of the year 2013, whereas the protest petition was filed after an inordinate delay. It is further submitted that two final reports were submitted during the investigation, which indicates that no prima facie case is made out.
10. It is also submitted that the dispute is of a civil nature relating to land possession and has been given a criminal colour. It is argued that there are contradictions in the statements, and no independent witness has supported the case. It is further contended that the summoning order has been passed mechanically.
11. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has contended that all the appellants have criminal history. Appellant no. 1, Raghuveer Tiwari, has a criminal history of 24 cases, which is as follows:
1. Case Crime No. 142/2006, under Sections 353, 504, and 506 IPC.
2. Case Crime No. 148/2006, under Section 3 of the U.P. Goonda Act.
3. Case Crime No. 124A/2002, under Sections 323, 324, and 325 IPC.
4. Case Crime No. 236/2008, under Sections 307/34 IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
5. Case Crime No. 109/2009, under Sections 392, 307, and 323 IPC.
6. Case Crime No. 382/2009, under Sections 2/3(1) of the Gangsters Act.
7. Case Crime No. 429/2011, under Sections 147, 427, and 506 IPC.
8. Case Crime No. 61/2012, under Section 110 G Cr.P.C.
9. Case Crime No. 342/2014, under Section 3 of the U.P. Goonda Act.
10. Case Crime No. 151/2016, under Sections 323, 504, and 506 IPC.
11. Case Crime No. 361/2016, under Sections 332, 353, 504, 506, and 364 IPC.
12. Case Crime No. 378/2016, under Section 3 of the U.P. Goonda Act.
13. Case Crime No. 416/2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, and 506 IPC.
14. Case Crime No. 557/2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, and 506 IPC.
15. Case Crime No. 164/2009, under Section 307 IPC, Police Station Basai, District Agra.
16. Case Crime No. 166/2009, under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act.
17. Case Crime No. 150/2018, under Section 307 IPC.
18. Case Crime No. 007/2020, under Sections 364, 302, 201, 506, and 120-B IPC.
19. Case Crime No. 157/2007, under Section 307 IPC.
20. Case Crime No. 129/2021, under Sections 171 E and 506 IPC.
21. Case Crime No. 205/2022, under Sections 385, 504, and 506 IPC.
22. Case Crime No. 160/2018, under Sections 419 and 420 IPC.
23. Case Crime No. 92/2023, under Sections 147, 323, 452, 504, and 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act.
24. Case Crime No. 529/2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 336, 452, and 504 IPC.
12. Appellant no. 2, Rajiv Tiwari, has a criminal history of one case, i.e., Case Crime No. 92/2023, under Sections 147, 323, 452, 504, and 506 IPC, and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act.
13. Appellant no. 3, Sandeep Tiwari has a criminal history of one case, i.e., Case Crime No. 92/2023, under Sections 147, 323, 452, 504, and 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Badhpura ? final report submitted.
14. Appellant no. 4, Satte has a criminal history of one case, i.e., Case Crime No. 92/2023, under Sections 147, 323, 452, 504, and 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act.
15. Learned A.G.A. thus contends that in view of the criminal antecedents of the appellants, particularly the extensive criminal history of appellant no. 1, no indulgence is warranted by this Court, and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
16. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that although appellant no. 1 has a long criminal history, the same is attributable to political rivalry, as he is a village Pradhan. It is further submitted that in several cases he has been acquitted, while in others he is on bail or final reports have been submitted, and he has not been convicted in any case. He next argued that the summoning order has been passed against the appellants on the basis of the same allegations that were initially made by the complainant in the year 2013.
17. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the entire material available on record, this Court finds that the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. as well as the statement of the supporting witness recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. have been duly taken by the trial court in accordance with law. A careful examination of the impugned order reveals that the learned trial court has taken into consideration the allegations made in the complaint, the statements recorded during the inquiry, and other material brought on record, and thereafter has arrived at its satisfaction for proceeding against the appellants.
18. In the present case, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants regarding delay, alleged falsity of the allegations, and existence of civil dispute are all issues which involve disputed questions of fact. Such issues cannot be adjudicated upon at the stage of summoning and require evidence to be led by the parties before the trial court. Similarly, the submission regarding contradictions in statements and lack of independent witnesses pertains to the appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible at this preliminary stage.
19. The record further indicates that despite submission of final reports during investigation, the complainant pursued the matter by filing a protest petition, which has been treated as a complaint. The learned trial court, upon due application of judicial mind, has recorded its satisfaction regarding the existence of sufficient grounds to summon the appellants. The impugned order reflects due consideration and cannot be said to have been passed in a mechanical manner.
20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that a prima facie case is made out against the appellants on the basis of the material available on record. The correctness or otherwise of the allegations shall be tested during the course of trial on the basis of evidence led by the parties.
21. In view thereof, no illegality, irregularity, or perversity is found in the impugned summoning order dated 02.08.2024 passed by the trial court. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Abdul Shahid,J.)
April 7, 2026
M. Tarik
Â
Â