HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7781 of 2024 Court No. - 86 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. Heard Mr. Anmol, learned Advocate holding brief of Mr. Lavkush Dixit, learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A for the State as well as perused the record. 2. 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 impugned summoning order dated 25.10.2023 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Court no.2, Etawah in Complaint Case No. 482 of 2023 (Amit Kumar Vs Sajid Mansoori and another), under Sections 323, 504, 506 3(1) (rs), 3(2)5A SC/ST (Ρ.Α.), Act, Police Station- Civil Lines, District- Etawah with a further prayer to stay further proceedings of the aforesaid case. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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, Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Lavkush Dixit Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Sajid Mansoori And Another .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) 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 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. 6. The prayer for quashing the summoning order is refused. 7. However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid directions, this criminal appeal is finally disposed off. October 7, 2025 Krishna* CRLA No. 7781 of 2024 2 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad