HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11272 of 2025 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1. Despite last opportunity granted by this Court vide order dated 24.8.2026, none appears on behalf of opposite party no.3. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/applicant and learned AGA for the State. 3. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant with a prayer to set aside the charge-sheet dated 11.7.2024 as well as the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 7.1.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.2/Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act, Kanpur Dehat in Session Case No.28 of 2025 (State vs. Jyoti Devi Sharma), arising out of Case Crime No.111 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S.- Sikandara, District- Kanpur Dehat. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the summoning order is illegal and has been passed without proper appreciation of the material on record. It is submitted that the injury report was prepared after an unexplained delay of about 16 days, thereby rendering the prosecution version doubtful. The medical report merely records simple injuries stated to be 16–17 days old and does not conclusively connect the alleged injuries with the incident in question. It is further argued that the delay in Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Lallan Prasad, Alok Singh, Ankit Katiyar, Phool Chandra Singh, Pramod Kumar Katiyar, Sumitra Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Ravi Shankar Yadav Jyoti Devi Alias Jyoti Sharma Alias Jyoti Devi Sharma .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) medical examination casts serious doubt on the prosecution case, and therefore the appellant has been falsely implicated. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the appeal be allowed. 5. Learned AGA has opposed the appeal and submits that the appellant is specifically named in the FIR and that the victim has consistently supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded during investigation by attributing a specific role to the appellant in using caste- based derogatory language and causing injuries. It is further submitted that the medical report corroborates the version of the injured and that the delay in medical examination is a matter of evidence to be appreciated during trial. It is, therefore, contended that the trial Court has rightly taken cognizance and summoned the appellant, and no interference is warranted. 6. In the FIR, the present appellant has been specifically named along with two co-accused, namely Ram Sharan and Aman. Ram Sharan is stated to be the husband of the appellant. The prosecution case, as set out in the FIR, is that when the victim had gone to Tehsil Sikandra for her personal work and came out of the tehsil premises, the appellant met her outside the premises, abused her by using caste-based derogatory language with the intention to insult and humiliate her, and also caused injuries to her. During investigation, the victim, in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., supported the prosecution version and specifically attributed the role of the appellant in using derogatory language and causing injuries. The place of occurrence has consistently been stated to be outside the Tehsil Sikandra premises. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the injury report was prepared belatedly. It is true that the medical examination was conducted on 17.05.2024, about 16 days after the alleged incident, and the doctor opined that the injuries were simple in nature and approximately 16–17 days old. However, the effect of such delay in the preparation of the injury report is a matter of appreciation of evidence to be considered by the trial Court during trial. Prima facie, the medical report lends corroboration to the version of the injured/victim. Considering the allegations in the FIR, the statement of the victim recorded during investigation, and the material collected by the Investigating Officer, this Court finds no error in the CRLA No. 11272 of 2025 2 order whereby the trial Court has taken cognizance and summoned the appellant. 7. For the reasons recorded above, this Court finds that the learned trial court has rightly summoned the accused-appellant under the aforesaid provisions. The impugned order is well reasoned and does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. 8. The instant appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. 9. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to serve a copy of this order by FAX/e-mail to the court concerned through District & Sessions Judge concerned within 48 hours. September 9, 2026 RA CRLA No. 11272 of 2025 3 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad