HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8477 of 2025 Court No. - 86 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. List revised. None appeared on behalf of respondent no. 2. 2. Heard Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants, and the learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record. 3. 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 charge-sheet No. A-171 of 2024, as well as the cognizance/summoning order dated 05.02.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia, in Sessions Case No. 752 of 2025 (State vs. Ramesh Chauhan), arising out of Case Crime No. 162 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) & 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station – Nagara, District – Ballia, with a further prayer to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that respondent no. 2 has filed the present case merely to give a criminal colour to an existing civil dispute. It is submitted that the Investigating Officer conducted the investigation in a mechanical manner and submitted the charge-sheet without considering that a civil litigation between the parties was already pending. It is further submitted that the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia, passed the impugned order dated 05.02.2025 without applying his judicial mind, and even summoned two additional persons who were not named in the charge-sheet. Moreover, the police station has been wrongly mentioned in the order. Hence, the court below has committed a manifest error of law while passing the impugned order, which deserves to be set aside. 5. The learned A.G.A. did not dispute the aforesaid factual position. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Ramesh Chauhan And 3 Others .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) the record, this Court finds that the learned court below has failed to apply its judicial mind to the material available before summoning the appellants. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 749, has held that: “Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. The Magistrate is not a silent spectator at the time of taking cognizance of an offence. He must carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and examine whether any offence is prima facie made out.” Similarly, in M.N. Ojha & Ors. vs. Alok Kumar Srivastav & Anr., (2009) 9 SCC 682, the Supreme Court observed that: “The process of law cannot be allowed to be used for oblique purposes, and where the dispute is predominantly of civil nature, giving it a criminal colour amounts to abuse of the process of the court.” 7. In the present case, the impugned order dated 05.02.2025 shows no application of judicial mind and has been passed mechanically, in violation of the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 8. Accordingly, the impugned summoning order dated 05.02.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia, is hereby quashed and set-aside. The matter is remanded to the court below to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned and in light of the observations made hereinabove. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present criminal appeal stands allowed. October 17, 2025 Krishna* CRLA No. 8477 of 2025 2 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad