HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4091 of 2021 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants 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 1.9.2021 passed by court of Special Judge SC/ST Act/A.D.J. Ghaziabad whereby the appellants have been summoned under Sections 452, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 (2) (5) SC/ST (PA) Act, Police Station- Indirapuram, District- Ghaziabad. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the appellants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. No offence against the appellants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intentions for the purposes of harassment. 4. Per contra, the counsel for the informant has opposed the appeal and submitted as per statement of the witnesses that accused/appellants entered in the house of the informant/victim and committed marpeet and abused her caste related words. In support of his submission, he has relied upon paragraph no.15 of the judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. The State of Uttarakhand and another in Criminal Appeal No.707 of 2020. He further submits that 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 case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the appellants. 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. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ajatshatru Pandey, Ramesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Mahendra Tripathi, Ramesh Kumar Pandey Brij Kasana And 2 Others .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) 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, this criminal appeal stands dismissed. 8. However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. September 12, 2025 Krishna* CRLA No. 4091 of 2021 2 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad