HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9084 of 2025 Court No. - 86 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for respondent no. 2, and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record. 2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, "the SC/ST Act") has been preferred for setting aside the impugned summoning order dated 03.04.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bulandshahr in Complaint Case No. 42 of 2024 (Guddu Kumar Vs. Manveer Sharma and others), under Sections 147, 323, 354-Ka, 354-Kha, 452, 504, 506, 376/511 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(1)(ba), 3(2)(5-A) of the SC/ST (P.A.) Act, against appellant nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6; and under Sections 147, 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(1)(ba), 3(2)(5-A) of the SC/ST (P.A.) Act against appellant no. 3, Police Station–Jahagirganj, District–Bulandshahr, with a further prayer to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case. 3. As per the prosecution story, opposite party no. 2 moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the appellants alleging that on 09.03.2024 at about 4:00 p.m., a dispute arose between the parties regarding guavas. On the next day, i.e., 10.03.2024 at about 6:30 p.m., when the wife of opposite party no. 2 went to collect milk, the accused persons allegedly entered his premises, hurled caste-based abuses, and appellants Sheelu @ Chetan Sharma and Monu Sharma allegedly attempted to outrage her modesty. It is alleged that she somehow managed to escape, but the accused persons assaulted her, and when she raised an alarm, other family members arrived and were also beaten. It is further alleged that police reached the spot and conducted the medical examination of the complainant's wife but did not lodge the F.I.R.; rather, a counter-F.I.R. was lodged against the complainant's side as Case Crime No. 102 of 2024, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ghanshyam Krishna Dwivedi, Vinod Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ambleshwar Pandey, Anuj Srivastava, Devaang Savla, G.A. Manveer Sharma And 5 Others .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) 4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated. It is submitted that the complaint was filed by opposite party no. 2 as a counterblast to Case Crime No. 102 of 2024 lodged by appellant no. 1 on 11.03.2024. 5. It is further submitted that the learned court below took cognizance and summoned the appellants on 3.4.2025, by which date the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) had already come into force w.e.f. 01.07.2024; hence, the provisions of BNSS, 2023 would be applicable to the present proceedings. In support of his submission, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Deepu and 4 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others, Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12287 of 2024, wherein it has been held that the procedural provisions of the BNSS apply retrospectively to proceedings commenced after 01.07.2024, subsequent proceedings including inquiry, trial and appeal shall be governed by BNSS, 2023. The relevant extract from paragraphs 15 and 16 of the said judgment reads as under: "If any offence is committed prior to the enforcement of new criminal laws, and F.I.R. is also registered prior to the enforcement of new criminal laws, then the procedure of investigation would be as per the Cr.P.C. in view of Section 531(2)(a) of the BNSS. However, where cognizance is taken on or after 01.07.2024, all subsequent proceedings including enquiry, trial or appeal would be conducted as per the procedure of BNSS. Section 531(2)(a) of BNSS saves only pending investigation, trial, appeal, application and enquiry, therefore, if any trial, appeal, revision or application is commenced after 01.07.2024, the same will be proceeded as per the procedure of BNSS." 6. Reliance has also been placed on Rahul Gandhi vs. State of U.P. through Addl. Chief Secretary (Home), Lko. and another, Application U/S 482 No. 4623 of 2025. It is argued that there is no reliable evidence connecting the appellants with the alleged offence, and no prima facie case is made out against them. It is further urged that the learned court below has passed the impugned summoning order mechanically, without due application of judicial mind. The impugned order, therefore, deserves to be set aside. 7. Learned A.G.A. opposed the appeal but did not dispute the legal position as laid down in Deepu (supra). 8. Upon hearing the rival submissions and perusal of the record, this Court finds that the learned Special Judge has failed to apply his judicial mind to the material available before summoning the appellants. Moreover, in view of the law laid down in Deepu and others vs. State of U.P. (supra), since cognizance in the present case was taken CRLA No. 9084 of 2025 2 after 01.07.2024, the procedure prescribed under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was applicable. The court below, however, proceeded under the old procedural regime without adverting to the applicability of BNSS, rendering the impugned order legally unsustainable. 9. Accordingly, the impugned summoning order dated 03.04.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bulandshahr, is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the court below to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after due consideration of the facts, evidence, and the procedural provisions of BNSS, 2023. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present criminal appeal stands allowed. October 14, 2025 Krishna* CRLA No. 9084 of 2025 3 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad