HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8214 of 2025 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1.Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. 2.This Criminal appeal under Section 14-A (1) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (in short of 'the SC/ST Act) has been preferred by the appellants with the prayer to set aside the Special Case no. 85 of 2025, (State Vs. Harshdeep Olakh and others), which is arising from the impugned cognizance order dated 13.6.2025, over the charge sheet dated 30.4.2025 in Case Crime no. 100 of 2025, under Section 126 (2), 115 (2), 352, 351 (2) B.N.S. and 3 (2) va, 3 (1) da and 3 (1) dha SC/ST Act, P.S. Bilaspur, District Rampur including the impugned summoning order dated 13.6.2025. 3.The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. 4.From the perusal of the 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 applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions 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.IR. 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 Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Kamala Kant Pandey, Shrawan Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Harshdeep Olakh And 2 Others .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) 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 applicants has got a right of discharge before the court below and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court. 5.The prayer for quashing the impugned summoning order as well as cognizance order of the aforementioned case is refused. 6.However, it is provided that if the appellants appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. 7.With the aforesaid observations this Criminal appeal is finally disposed off. .... September 12, 2025 A. CRLA No. 8214 of 2025 2 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- AFAQ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad