HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3059 of 2025 Court No. - 86 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is also present. 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 quash/set aside the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 22.01.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Fatehpur in Special Sessions Trial No. 61 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 0075 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504 IPC and Section 3(1) (dha) and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Jahanabad, District Fatehpur. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that no offence against the appellants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intentions for the purposes of harassment. 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 having no force is liable to be dismissed. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Pramod Kumar Sinha Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Phool Singh Yadav, Vaibhav Yadav Irfan Ansari And 3 Others .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) 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 appellants. 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.I.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 applicants have got a right of discharge as the case may be, before the court below and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court. The prayer for quashing the proceedings of case as well as summoning/cognizance order is refused. However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within two weeks and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. For a period of two weeks, no coercive steps shall be taken against the appellants in the aforesaid case. With the aforesaid directions, this criminal appeal is finally disposed off. October 30, 2025 RavindraKSingh CRLA No. 3059 of 2025 2 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad