HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6909 of 2026 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the appellants is taken on record. 2. As per office report, notice has been served personally on opposite party no.2. But no one has appeared on his behalf. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 4. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14A(1) of S.C. & S.T. Act by the appellants challenging the summoning order dated 07.03.2026 passed by Special Judge S.C.& S.T. Act, Bijnor and charge-sheet No. 30 of 2026 dated 31.01.2026 as well as the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 1360 of 2026 (State vs. Mahendra Singh and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 02 of 2026, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) and 126(2) B.N.S. and Section 3(2) va S.C. & S.T. Act, P.S. Chandpur, District Bijnor. 5. Tersely, as per the FIR version, the informant Ankul Kumar alleged that on 28.12.2025 at about 10:00 a.m., while he was proceeding through the village, accused Mahendra Singh, son of Munesh, stopped him and started abusing him without any reason. When the informant objected, the accused appellants Mahendra Singh and Munesh allegedly assaulted him with kicks and fists and used a caste-indicative slur, referring to him by his caste. The accused further threatened to drive him out of the village. 6. Briefly, the grounds of the appeal are that the impugned summoning order Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Shiva Shanker Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Mahendra Singh And Another .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) dated 07.03.2026 passed by Special Judge S.C.& S.T. Act, Bijnor is wholly illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The impugned order is based on surmises and conjunctures as such same is liable to be quashed. 7. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that the prosecution version is doubtful and that the appellants have been implicated on the basis of an exaggerated and delayed version of the occurrence. It is contended that the alleged incident took place on 28.12.2025, whereas the FIR was lodged only on 01.01.2026, after an unexplained delay of three days. Such delay, according to learned counsel, creates serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the prosecution case and the manner in which the appellants have been implicated. It is further submitted that the injuries found on the person of the injured are minor in nature and do not support the allegation of a serious assault. Learned counsel submits that the medical report records only a small abrasion over the right nostril and a complaint of body pain, with no grievous or significant injury having been found. It is argued that the prosecution has sought to improve its case by assigning specific roles to the appellants and by alleging the use of casteist slurs. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the material collected during investigation does not furnish sufficient grounds for proceeding against the appellants and that the order taking cognizance is liable to be interfered with. 8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State submits that the accused-appellants are specifically named in the FIR and specific and distinct roles have been attributed to them. It is submitted that the injured, in his statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS, has categorically stated the involvement of the appellants in causing injuries and abusing him by using casteist slurs at a place within public view. The said version is further supported by the statements of the independent eyewitnesses.Learned A.G.A. further submits that the medical examination was conducted during the course of investigation and the medical report records an abrasion over the right nostril and a complaint of body pain. The doctor has opined that the injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object. Thus, the medical evidence lends prima facie corroboration to the ocular version of the injured. It is contended that the nature or extent of the injuries cannot, at the stage of taking cognizance, be treated as determinative of the existence of a prima facie case. With regard to the delay in lodging the FIR, learned A.G.A. submits that the alleged occurrence took place on 28.12.2025 and the FIR was registered on 01.01.2026, but the mere delay in lodging the FIR does CRLA No. 6909 of 2026 2 not, by itself, demolish the prosecution case. The effect, explanation and evidentiary significance of such delay are matters to be assessed on the basis of evidence during trial. Learned A.G.A. accordingly submits that the material on record discloses sufficient prima facie grounds to proceed against the accused-appellants and that no interference is warranted at the stage of cognizance. 9. Having regard to the material available on record, it is evident that the accused-appellants are specifically named in the FIR and distinct roles have been attributed to them, including causing injuries to the injured/victim and abusing him by using casteist slurs at a place within public view. The mere fact that the FIR was lodged after a delay of three days, the alleged occurrence having taken place on 28.12.2025 and the FIR having been registered on 01.01.2026, cannot, at this stage, by itself, be a ground to discard the prosecution version. The effect and explanation of such delay, as well as its evidentiary significance, are matters which may appropriately be examined by the learned trial court during the course of trial. 10. The injured has, in his statement recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 180 BNSS, specifically stated the role and involvement of the accused-appellants in causing the injuries. The medical examination conducted thereafter also lends prima facie support to the prosecution version. The medical report records two injuries, namely, a dry scab abrasion measuring 1.0 × 0.7 cm over the right nostril, 2.05 cm lateral to the lip of the nose, and a complaint of body pain. The doctor has opined that the injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object. The prosecution case is further supported by the statements of the independent eyewitnesses, while the medical evidence lends corroboration to the version of the first informant. 11. Thus, at the stage of taking cognizance, the material on record discloses sufficient prima facie grounds connecting the accused-appellants with the alleged occurrence. The questions relating to the delay in lodging the FIR, the reliability and credibility of the witnesses, the evidentiary value of the medical report, and the ultimate truthfulness of the prosecution allegations are matters requiring appreciation of evidence and are appropriately left for consideration by the learned trial court at the stage of trial. At this stage, a meticulous appreciation or evaluation of the evidence is neither warranted nor permissible. CRLA No. 6909 of 2026 3 12. Accordingly, no ground for interference is made out at this stage, and the challenge raised by the accused-appellants does not merit acceptance. 13. This criminal appeal is, therefore, dismissed. September 29, 2026 Asha CRLA No. 6909 of 2026 4 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad