Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:12306 Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 596 of 2025 Appellant :- Shubham Gupta @ Monu Gupta And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Abhishek Misra,Suraj Narayan Bajpai Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) for the State. Notice to respondent no. 2 are dispensed with in view of the proposed order. By this petition, the appellants have prayed for the following relief:- Wherefore it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash order dated 17.12.2024 by which cognizance has been taken for alleged offence 323/341/384/420/406/504/506 IPC and 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s)/3(2)(va) SC/ST Act by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki, in S.T. No. 2322/2024 arising out of FIR No.- 127/2023,, P.S.- Kotwali, District Barabanki, Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order of cognizance and summoning has been passed without application of mind. It is contended that offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC cannot be committed in the course of the same transaction. It has been further submitted that no offence under SC/ST Act is made out from perusal of FIR and police report. On the other hand, Shri Anurag Verma, learned AGA, opposes the contention of the appellants' counsel, asserting that multiple transactions are involved, and therefore, there is no bar on taking cognizance under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. He further submits that this can be deciphered from the FIR as well as the statement of the complainant which is on record. It is further argued that offences under Section SC/ST Act are prima facie made out which is evident from perusal of the statement of the complainant where specific caste related abuses have been alleged to be made and the victim has been beaten in public view. Perused the record. A perusal of the FIR as well as statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., prima facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence. No interference is warranted. This is not a case where the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 28.2.2025 R.C. Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench