HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10746 of 2025 Court No. - 51 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Shiv Nath Singh, learned counsel for the respondent/informant and Shri R.K. Singh, learned AGA for the State. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant with a prayer to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 05.08.2025 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Kanpur Dehat in Sessions Case No.788 of 2025 (State Vs. Sanjay Awasthi) arising out of Case Crime No.34 of 2024, under Section 336, 504, 506, 354Ka I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5a SC/ST Act, Police Station-Chaubeypur, District-Kanpur Nagar, as well as charge sheet No.138 of 2024 dated 27.05.2024 and also to quash the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case. 3. Briefly stated, a first information report was lodged against the appellant and three other accused persons. Informant stated in her FIR that certain altercation between children of two parties occurred at about 4:30 pm on 28.1.2024. Enraged by the said dispute, all the accused persons including the appellant arrived at her house. They were armed with clubs, sticks and axes. They dragged the informant outside her house and assaulted her. When her husband Sandeep stopped them from doing so, they also assaulted him. Informant has an injury of axe on her head. Her son Sahil and her daughter Shivani also sustained injuries. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Deepak Singh, Diksha Duggal Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Shiv Nath Singh Sanjay Awasthi .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the first information report was lodged against four persons. However, the name of three accused persons were dropped by the Investigating Officer. One of accused Guddu Awasthi was exonerated by I.O. by considering that an FIR against the informant was also lodged by wife of Guddu Awasthi. Statement of three independent witnesses recorded during the investigation reveals that appellant was not involved in the incident. These independent witnesses have categorically stated that dispute occurred after the husband of informant objected to the sound of loudspeaker installed at religious procession. Informant's husband Sandeep was disturbed to by the said sound and he asked Guddu @ Arun Awasthi to remove the said loudspeaker. However, he replied that he will not remove, rather Sandeep can make his demand from the Committee member. Even these witnesses have stated that quarrel had taken place between the children of society and the appellant and other accused persons were only trying to intervene between them. Appellant was not involved in the incident and has been falsely implicated by the respondent/informant. 5. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that allegation in the FIR is that an injury by axe was also inflicted. However, no such injury was reported in the injury report of the alleged injured persons. Doctor has revealed that all the injured persons have sustained simple injuries. Even the injured person were also examined next day after the incident which itself substantiates that injuries were simple in nature. Allegations in the first information report are concocted and exaggerated. Hence, the impugned order summoning the appellant to face trial for the offences they did not commit, is liable to be set aside. 6. Learned AGA and the learned counsel for the informant submitted that informant and her children had sustained injuries in the incident. They were medically examined by the doctor and injuries by hard and blunt object were found on their persons. Informant as well as other two injured persons have corroborated the prosecution story. The occurrence of incident cannot be denied as injury report clearly reveals that injured persons as well as informant were assaulted by the appellant and other accused persons. Hence, the impugned summoning order does not warrant CRLA No. 10746 of 2025 2 any interference. 7. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record including the case diary. 8. The contention on behalf of the appellant that a cross FIR by the wife of Guddu Awasthi (exonerated during the investigation) that was lodged against the informant, was also considered. Learned counsel for the appellant has disclosed about the finding recorded by the Investigating Officer in the investigation carried out in the FIR lodged against the informant. The statement of witnesses recorded during the investigation of both FIRs reveals the same fact that certain dispute occurred after the husband of the informant demanded to remove the loudspeaker causing him disturbance. Investigation in both cases itself reveals that certain dispute between the children had taken place. Totality of circumstance which appears from the investigation carried out in respect of both FIRs clearly indicates that some altercation has taken place. Moreover, injury report of the injured persons prepared on the next date also indicates that injured have sustained injuries. Therefore, there is no reason to discard the prosecution allegations at this stage. Hence, the impugned order summoning the appellant does not suffer from any infirmity and it requires no interference. 9. This criminal appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. March 19, 2026 SK CRLA No. 10746 of 2025 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHEEL KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad