HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9286 of 2024 Court No. - 86 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. Heard Mr. Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A for the State, Mr. Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 as also perused the record. 2. 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 as well as cognizance/summoning orders 19.03.2023 and 16.09.2023 also non bailable warrant dated 30.01.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Jalaun at Orai as well as entire proceeding of S.T. No.81 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No.179 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to pressurize and harass the appellant, in fact, no such incident has taken place. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged against him. Further submission is that no offence against the appellant is disclosed and the court below has utterly failed to consider as no prima facie case is made out against the appellant. He also pointed out certain documents in support of his contention. 4. Per contra, the learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 opposed the appeal and have submitted that during investigation credible evidence was found against the appellant, therefore, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant and court below has rightly summoned the appellant to face trial. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Dinesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui Aram Singh Chauhan .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) order warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the appeal having no force is liable to be dismissed. 5. 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.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 appellant 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. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the impugned order. I find no irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the order impugned. The appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. October 14, 2025 Ajeet CRLA No. 9286 of 2024 2 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad