HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8354 of 2024 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA and have perused the record. 2. This criminal appeal under Section14-A(1) of SC/ST Act has been filed by the applicants for quashing of the summoning order dated 15.11.2016 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Meerut, in Criminal Misc Case No. 256 of 2016, under Sections 420, 376, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act as well as the charge sheet dated 1.10.2016, P.S. Kankerkhera, District Meerut. 3. 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 appellant in a routine manner. It is further submitted that the trial court merely on the basis of the police papers summoned the applicant in an arbitrary and erroneous manner. It is further submitted that there are contradictions in the statements of the victim said to have been recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. 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. 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 Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Santosh Kumar Kesarwani, Sudhir Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Shaili Ganguly Dr. Amit Kumar .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the appeal having no force is liable to be dismissed. 5. 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. 6. 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). 7. 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. CRLA No. 8354 of 2024 2 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. September 16, 2025 RavindraKSingh CRLA No. 8354 of 2024 3 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad