Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84852 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 13428 of 2025 Applicant :- Deepu Yadav Alias Dev Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Sri Chandra Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A.-I for the State, Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav for O.P. No. 2 and perused the record. 2. The applicant has preferred the instant application challenging the impugned cognizance order dated 07.11.2024 passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jhansi, charge-sheet dated 05.06.2023 in Case No. 1720 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 54 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(2)5Ka of SC/ST Act, 1989, P.S. Poonch, District Jhansi. 3. Brief facts of the case are that a first information report has been lodged on 04.04.2023 against the applicant with an allegation that on 31.03.2023 the O.P. No. 2 was going with harvester to harvest his fields, on the way he was intercepted by the applicant who asked him to harvest his fields first, however, the O.P. No. 2 refused, on which the applicant grabbed his neck and beat him with fists on face, due to which the O.P. No. 2 sustained injuries on face and eyes. The applicant also used caste indicative words. After investigation charge-sheet has been submitted and the applicant has been summoned by the court concerned. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further contended that there is no independent witness to the aforesaid incident and as per statements of Dr. Prabhat Chaurasiya recorded on 27.04.2023, injuries are simple in nature, thus, no offence against the applicant is made out. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate falsity of allegations made against him, therefore, summoning as well as continuance of the proceedings are nothing but abuse of process of law, thus, liable to be quashed. 5. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, submits that from the statements of charge- sheet witnesses and independent witnesses the incident is proved against the applicant and as per the medical report, version of the FIR and nature of injuries sustained by the O.P. No. 2 the applicant is liable for the offence. He used caste indicative words in a public view, wherein other persons were also present. It is next contended by learned counsel for the State that other contentions raised by the applicant's counsel relate to disputed questions of fact, which may not be taken into consideration by this Court under the present jurisdiction. 6. This Court finds that the submissions made by the applicant's learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. The issue whether it is appropriate for this Court being the highest Court to exercise its jurisdiction under the present jurisdiction to quash the charge-sheet and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicant and trial is yet to come only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 are not only malicious but also an abuse of process of law has elaborately been discussed by the Apex Court in the following judgments: (i) R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab; AIR 1960 SC 866, (ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.;1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335, (iii) State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr.; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222, (iv) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr.; 2005 (1) SCC 122, (v) M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava; 2009 (9) SCC 682, (vi) Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others; 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 454, (vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45, and lastly (viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143. 7. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicant arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing. 8. In view of the above, no interference is called for. The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet and the proceedings of the case is refused, as I do not see any abuse of the court's process at this pre-trial stage. 9. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 DS Digitally signed by :- DIGAMBER SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad