HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4302 of 2024 Court No. - 86 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (1) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short 'the SC/ST Act') has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to quash/set aside the cognizance/summoning order dated 05.12.2018 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Banda in Special Criminal Case No. 187 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 8 of 2018, under Sections 387, 419, 420, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)5-A of SC/ST Act, P.S. Badausa, District Banda as well as the entire proceedings of aforesaid case. 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. 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. 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 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.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 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Rajesh, Sunil Kumar Pathak Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Shivsagar .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) 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. The prayer for quashing the proceedings of case as well as cognizance/summoning order is refused. However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. With the aforesaid directions, this criminal appeal is finally disposed off. October 8, 2025 RavindraKSingh CRLA No. 4302 of 2024 2 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad