Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:49622 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10348 of 2023 Appellant :- Baccha Yadav @ Ashok Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Naveen Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as the SC/ST Act) has been preferred by the appellant Baccha Yadav @ Ashok Yadav challenging the cognizance and summoning order dated 08.05.2023 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Allahabad, who in Special Session Trial No. 255 of 2023 (State of U.P. Vs. Bachha Yadav @ Ashok Yadav) arising out of Case Crime No. 497 of 2022, Police Station Dhoomanganj, District Prayagraj took cognizance of the offences under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act. After submission of charge sheet in this matter, the appellant was summoned to face trial for the aforesaid offences. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is not present even in revised call. 3. The prosecution case as put forward in the FIR is that both the parties have some land dispute and on the land which was recorded in the name of the informant, gate and boundary wall were constructed by the informant but the accused persons were trying to take forcible possession over the land on a public place in public view. FIR was lodged and now the charge sheet has been submitted by the police. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence but he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the whole investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer is bogus and fabricated in the eyes of law. As a matter of fact, the Investigating Officer collected no evidence against the appellant. It is next submitted that the prosecution case is not supported by any independent witness or by the people living in the same vicinity. It is also submitted that even prima facie case was not made out against the appellant but the learned trial court without properly perusing the case diary passed cognizance and summoning order in an arbitrary and illegal manner. On the basis of aforesaid submissions it has been prayed that the cognizance and summoning order dated 08.05.2023 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST Act in the aforesaid case be set aside by allowing the present criminal appeal. 5. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and it has been submitted that there was ample evidence against the accused appellant for the offence under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2) (va) SC/ST Act. It is further submitted that the informant, who is the victim himself, has corroborated the prosecution story in his statement given to the Investigating Officer in material terms. It is next submitted that the words spoken by the accused appellant has been disclosed by the victim in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that the informant has clarified in his aforesaid statement that he is member of scheduled caste/scheduled tribe community and since the crime was committed in a place within public view and the informant was hurled abuses by caste related remarks, an offence was clearly made out against the appellant under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act. It is also submitted that the appeal has no force and deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully. 7. At the time of taking cognizance on a charge sheet and further to summon the accused for certain offences is a prerogative of the Court and at that stage the Court is not expected to pass a detailed order for summoning or to elaborately scrutinize the evidence on record. 8. It is trite law that at the stage of taking cognizance and 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. The Court at this stage is not required to analyse the material on record to find-out as to whether the matter may lead to conviction or not. Sufficiency of materials for the purpose of conviction is not required. It is also settled that even when there are materials raising strong suspicion against the accused, the court will be justified in taking cognizance and summoning the accused. The Court/Magistrate is not required to analyze the evidence on merits but to scrutinize the evidence only with a view to initiate criminal proceedings in respect of the offence which is said to have been committed (Vide: R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.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 Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283). 9. In State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, (2019) 20 SCC 539, the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that for issuance of summons strict standard of proof of satisfaction of the Magistrate regarding sufficiency of ground(s) to proceed in the matter is not required and such satisfaction should be based only on prima facie evidence. Before summoning the accused, the facts stated will have to be accepted as they appear on the very face of it. Sufficiency of evidence to hold accused guilty, merits of matter and defence pleas have to be examined at the stage of trial and not at the stage of issuance of process. Whether statement of a witness is hearsay and whether it is supported by "contemporaneous exposition" and whether it would fall under "res gestae" and whether it is admissible or not is to be seen only at the time of trial. 10. The charge sheet has been submitted under Section 3(2)(va) and Section 504 and 506 I.P.C. For ready reference Section 3(2)(va) is quoted herein below: [3(2)(va) commits any offence specified in the Schedule, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with such punishment as specified under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) for such offences and shall also be liable to fine;]. 11. For the application of Section 3(2)(va) it is to be shown that the offence which is alleged to have been committed finds place in the schedule or not and it is found that the offence under Section 506 I.P.C. is found in the schedule of the SC/ST Act. Although the offence under Section 504 I.P.C. is not included in the schedule of the SC/ST Act but it may be taken as an independent offence and accordingly the result is that the charge sheet submitted under Section 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(va) of the SC/ST Act is a valid piece of evidence. There is no legal lacuna or error in passing the cognizance/ summoning order by the learned Special Judge. It is found in the investigation by the I.O. that the appellant does not belong to SC/ST community and necessary ingriedients to charge the appellant for the offence under Section 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(va) of the SC/ST Act are clearly made out on the basis and material on record. 12. The I.O. of this case has collected ample and sufficient evidence to the effect that the informant who was a member of SC/ST community was hurled abuses and threatened by the present accused appellant, Since the parties were well known to each other, it is quite possible that the offence was committed by the appellant knowing that the informant is a member of SC/ST community. Not only the complainant but the other witnesses who have been interrogated by the I.O. during investigation have corroborated the prosecution version. Although some witnesses stated that no assault was taken place between both the parties and one witness also stated that he had no knowledge about the abuses to the informant but the informant himself has made specific statements as to how he was abused and threatened by the appellant. 13. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Lalankumar Singh and Others v. State of Maharashtra,2022 SCCOnLineSC 1383 (supra), has observed thus: "38. The order of issuance of process is not an empty formality. The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or not. The formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if, no reasons are given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case against the accused. No doubt, that the order need not contain detailed reasons. A reference in this respect could be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation9, which reads thus: 14. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that there is no justification to interfere with the summoning and cognizance order passed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 8.5.2023. Prima facie essential ingredients to establish the offence under Section 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act are made out against the appellant Baccha Yadav @ Ashok Yadav. 15. In view of the above, the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 7.4.2025 Fhd Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad