HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1951 of 2023 Court No. - 86 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (1) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short 'the SC/ST Act') has been preferred by the appellants with the prayer to set-aside the impugned order dated 03.02.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Mirzapur in Special Sessions Trial No. 68 of 2019, under Sections 323, 504, 354, 354-B, 427, 452 IPC and Section 3(1)Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(1) B (i) and 3(1) B (ii) of SC/ST Act, whereby the discharge applicant moved by the applicants/appellants has been rejected . 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that appellants are innocent persons and they have neither committed any offence nor they have committed any marpeet or misbehaved with the family members of the opposite party no. 2. It is further submitted that as per the FIR and the statements of the witnesses under Section 200/202 Cr.P.C. prima facie no offence under Section SC/St Act is made out. It is further submitted that as per statement of victim, no injury found on the persons of the injured/victim. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants/appellants that the present prosecution of the applicants at the hands of opposite party no. 2 is nothing but has been instituted with malafide intention to harass the applicants. It is further contended that no offence against the applicants is made out from the allegations set out in the complaint filed by opposite party no. 2. 5. He further submits that the impugned order rejecting the application for discharge is wholly illegal, capricious and against weight of evidence on record. He has further submitted that it transpires that order has been passed illegally in a routine manner and without application of judicial mind, hence without considering nature of evidence on record and therefore, the same are liable to be quashed. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ashok Malaviya Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Ram Adhar And 3 Others .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) 6. Per contra, learned AGA has contended that charges have now been framed by the order and the same does not suffer from any error of law and moreover in case the applicants have any grievance, they will have various opportunities for redressal of their grievance during course of trial. 7. Indisputably, it is open to this Court to quash the charges framed by the trial court and discharge the accused appellants but the same cannot be done by weighing the correctness, sufficiency of the evidence. The principle to be adopted in such cases should be that if the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed would it constitute the offence or not. It is only at the stage of the trial that truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the evidence can be adjudged. Therefore, it will not be proper to truncate or snip the proceeding at the stage of framing of charge. The impugned orders passed by the court below is well in conformity in law and does not suffer from error of illegality, irregularity and warrant no interference by this Court. 8. Thus, in the case in hand, the trial court has rightly dismissed the argument for discharge of appellants. There is no illegality, perversity or impropriety in the impugned orders. 9. However, the disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of defence before the trial court below and they are free to take all the submissions before the trial court. 10. The criminal appeal is accordingly disposed off. October 9, 2025 RavindraKSingh CRLA No. 1951 of 2023 2 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad