Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29145 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 1587 of 2025 Applicant :- Masaruph Ahmad And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sundeep Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Sundeep Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, who are three in number, and Sri Abhishek Tripathi, learned A.G.A., who appears for the State. Though service of notice upon O.P. No.2 has been effected on 01.02.2025, but nobody appears on her behalf. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicants for quashing the summoning order dated 15.07.2024, summoning applicant nos. 1 and 2 under sections 452, 345B, 504 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and 3(2)(va) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and summoning applicant no. 3 under Sections 504 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and 3(2)(va) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and further to quash entire proceedings of Complaint Case Number 06 of 2023 (Smt. Komal Vs. Masaruph Ahmad & Others), registered at Police Station- Saroorpur, District-Meerut pending before Learned Special Judge (S.C./ S.T. Act), Meerut. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that a complaint purported to be under Section 156(3) CrPC stood lodged against applicants under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506 IPC read with Sections 3(ii), (iii), (iv), (ix) and (xxi) of the SC/ST Act, P.S. Saroorpur, Meerut on 03.03.2023 relatable to the commission of the offences at two points of time; firstly on 02.09.2022 when applicant no.3, who happens to be ANM had required the applicants to bring certain articles and when the opposite party no.2 showed her inability to walk for long distance, then caste- based abuses were also hurled and threat was also administered that the applicant no.3 along with applicant no.1 who happened to be husband of the Gram Pradhan would terminate her services as Asha. Further allegation is that on 01.12.2022, when opposite party tried to lodge complaint, then on 18.12.2022, the O.P. No.2 was inflicted with a bad treatment while hurling of the caste-based abuses and when the same was resisted, then her clothes were also torn, and her husband who was confined in the bed made request not to do so, but they continued to do the same. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that statement of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC wrongly typed as 202 CrPC on 04.05.2023 was recorded wherein verbatim what was being narrated in the complaint stood deposed, and then the statement of the husband of O.P. No.2 was also recorded under Section 202 of CrPC on 29.08.2023, but all of a sudden on 03.05.2024, one Sube Ram who claims himself to be father of O.P. No.2 showed himself to be present and witnessed the entire incident. Learned counsel for applicants submits that so far as the allegation referable to 02.09.2022 is concerned, there is no independent witness, who could see the said incident. However, with regard to the incident dated 18.12.2022, if taken on face value, then too, they are not within the public view. It is further submitted that it is on account of the inefficiency of the O.P. no.2, her services stood terminated on 10.02.2022 and it is nothing but an attempt to exert pressure upon the applicants to withdraw the termination order and to settle their score. 4. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that what is to be seen is the fact as to whether offences are made out or not. He submits that there are two incidents; one of 02.09.2022 and other 18.12.2022. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned A.G.A. 6. The moot question, which arises for consideration is with regard to the stage of interference in the said proceeding, apparently there happens to be a complaint under Sections 156(3) CrPC narrating two incidents, 02.09.2022 and 18.12.2022. The basic allegations are hurling of caste-based abuses on 02.09.2022 and 18.12.2022 and with respect to 02.09.2022 in the office and 18.12.2022 on the gate of the house of the O.P. No.2. Apart from the same, the incident dated 18.12.2022 as sought to be painted by O.P. No.2, is that her clothes were also torn. The statements under Section 200 and 202 of CrPC also corroborate the same. There also happens to be a statement of Sube Ram dated 03.05.2024. Though, he also claims to be present and was also extended a blow, but the applicants disputes its presence and further submits that there was no recital of the same in the complaint as well as in statement under Section 202 CrPC. 7. Importantly, in the present case, there happens to be a statement under Section 200 and 202 CrPC of the complainant as well as her husband Rajendra and ingredients also find mention in the complaint itself, so as to include penal provision. 8. In any view of the matter, the defences and factual aspects cannot be given into at this stage, particularly, when trial has not commenced, as the same would be thrashed out, during the course of the trial. 9. In view of the same, this Court declines to interfere in the present proceedings. 10. The application is accordingly consigned to record. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that a direction be issued for consideration of the bail. 11. This Court has no reason to disbelieve that in case applicant moves appropriate proceedings before the court below for enlargement of bail, then the same may be decided with most expedition in accordance with the law of the land. Order Date :- 3.3.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad