HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9296 of 2025 Court No. - 86 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwar, learned Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no.2 today in the Court, the same is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A for the State as well as perused the record. 3. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred to set- aside the impugned charge sheet dated 01.02.2025 as well as cognizance order dated 10.07.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Moradabad in Session Trial No. 1282 of 2025 (State vs. Raj Kumari @ Pinki) arising out of Case Crime No. 425 of 2024, under Section 420, I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(Vक) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Thakur Dwara, District- Moradabad. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that no offence against the appellant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intentions for the purposes of harassment. 5. Per contra, the learned AGA opposed the appeal and submitted that at the stage of summoning the accused, the Magistrate/Court dealing with the matter is required to apply judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence to find-out as to whether prima-facie case has been made out to summon the accused or not. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the appeal Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Deshraj Garg, Vijendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Raj Kumari Alias Pinki .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) having no force is liable to be dismissed. 6. From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the appellant. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.L.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para- 10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge as the case may be, before the court below and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court. 7. The prayer for quashing the proceedings of case as well as cognizance order is refused. 8. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed. October 29, 2025 Krishna* CRLA No. 9296 of 2025 2 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad