Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:144673 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6605 of 2025 Appellant :- Radha Krishna Alias Bauwa Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Akansha Verma,Deepak Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA and have perused the record. Mr Jayant Kumar, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2 today which is taken on record. This criminal appeal under Section14-A(1) of SC/ST Act has been filed by the applicants for quashing of the summoning/Cognizance order dated 08.05.2025 passed in Sessions Case No. 619 of 2025 (State Vs Shiv Singh and others), under Sections 103(1), 191(2), 191(3), 352, 351(2), 351(3) BNS and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, in Case Crime No. 65 of 2025, P.S. Roora, District Kanpur Dehat, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 2/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kanpur Dehat as well as Charge sheet No. 141 of 2025 dated 8.5.2025. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the learned court without considering the material facts and evidence and applying his judicial mind summoned the appellants in a routine manner. Per contra, the learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 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. The Court concerned after applying its judicial mind has passed the summoning order on the basis of sufficient evidence on record. 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. 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. 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 analyze 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 as to whether sufficient grounds exist 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). 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. As is evident, all the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in this appeal. At this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the settled law, as discussed here-in-above. From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that offences levelled against the appellants are not made out and the record shows that a cognizable offence is clearly made out against the appellants. The Court concerned did not err in taking cognizance into the matter and thereby to summon the accused / appellants to face trial for the offences made out prima facie. There is no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. The impugned order does not suffer from illegality, infirmity, perversity or lack of judicial mind. The prayer made in the appeal is refused. The criminal appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. In Case the appellant appears and files his discharge application at appropriate stage, same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. Order Date :- 22.8.2025 RavindraKSingh Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad