HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5185 of 2024 Court No. - 86 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1.Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. 2. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 10.04.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bijnor in S.S.T. No. 2014 of 2023 (State of U.P Versus Shahzad & Others) arising Case Crime No 86 of 2023), under Sections 420, 406, 504 IPC, & 3 (2) (V), Ka S.C/S.T Act, Police Station- Noorpur, District- Bijnor, by which trail court has rejected the application under Section 319 Cr. P.C filed by Appellant. 3. The principal submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that the Court below has failed to appreciate that the evidence relied upon is not of such strong and cogent nature as would justify exercise of the extraordinary power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarabjit Singh & Another vs. State of Punjab (2009) 16 SCC 46; Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92; Manjeet Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2021 LiveLaw (SC) 398; and Sartaj Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2021) 5 SCC 337. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that the trial court has carefully considered the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded in Court and found sufficient material to summon the appellants. He submits that the order impugned does not suffer from any illegality, and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. Having considered rival submissions and perused the material on record, this Court finds that the trial court has recorded reasons with reference to the depositions of prosecution witnesses who have specifically implicated the appellants. It is settled law that the term "evidence" under Section 319 Cr.P.C. means such evidence as is adduced before the Court in the course of trial, and even the statement made in examination-in- chief may be sufficient for invoking the said power, if it discloses strong prima facie case. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Jitendra Singh, Vindesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Kusum Rani .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) 6. The judgments cited on behalf of the appellants do emphasize that power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and only when there is strong and cogent evidence. In the present case, the Court below has, after analyzing the evidence available on record, reached satisfaction that such material exists warranting summoning of the appellants. This Court does not find any perversity or manifest illegality in the impugned order. 7. Keeping in view of the aforesaid facts and law laid down by the Apex Court, I find no scope for interference in the impugned order passed by the trial court. The reasons assigned are just, proper, and in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. October 13, 2025 Krishna* CRLA No. 5185 of 2024 2 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad