HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10852 of 2024 Court No. - 86 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A for the State as well as 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 summoning order dated 31.7.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC & ST) Act, Sonbhadra in Session Trial No. 118 of 2023 (Indrawati Versus Urmila and others), under Sections 304, 201 I.P.C. and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station- Babhani, District- Sonbhadra with a further prayer to stay further proceedings of the aforesaid case. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that no offence against the appellant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intentions for the purposes of harassment. 4. 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. 5. From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Kamlakar Pal, Shiv Kumar Pal Counsel for Respondent(s) : Devesh Pandey, G.A., Pravinendra Bahadur Singh Urmila And 6 Others .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) 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.L.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 applicant 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. The prayer for quashing the proceedings of case as well as cognizance/summoning order is refused. 7. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed. October 14, 2025 Krishna* CRLA No. 10852 of 2024 2 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad