HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6906 of 2026 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1. Compliance affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record. 2. As per office report, notice has been served upon opposite party no.2 but no one has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants party no.2 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 impugned summoning order dated 25.03.2026, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Sant Kabir Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 156 of 2026, State Vs. Shilpa and another, arising out of Case Crime No. 55 of 2026, under Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(3) BNS and Section 3(1)(d), 3(2)(VA) of the SC/ST Act, P.S. Bakhira, District Sant Kabir Nagar. 5. Tersely, as per the FIR version, the informant alleged that on 09.02.2026 at about 6:00 p.m., accused Shilpa, Shubham and Shivangi, acting together, assaulted his daughter Roshni with lathi and danda. When the informant intervened to rescue his daughter, the accused allegedly abused him by using a caste-indicative slur, assaulted him and his daughter, causing injuries, and also extended threats to kill them. 6. Briefly, the grounds of the appeal are that the impugned summoning order dated 25.03.2026, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Sant Kabir Nagar is wholly illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The impugned order is based on surmises and conjunctures as such Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Lokesh Kumar Dwivedi, Piyush Mishra, Rajneesh Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Shilpa And Another .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) same is liable to be quashed. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case and that the genesis of the occurrence was a trivial dispute relating to the plucking of peas from the field. It is contended that the injuries allegedly sustained by the informant and his daughter Roshni are simple in nature and do not disclose any serious assault attributable to the appellants. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations contained in the FIR and the statements of the injured witnesses are exaggerated and have been made with a view to falsely implicate the appellants in the dispute. It is, therefore, submitted that the material available on record does not justify taking cognizance against the appellants and that the proceedings deserve to be interfered with. 8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State submits that the appellants are specifically named in the FIR and that specific allegations of assault have been levelled against them. It is submitted that the informant and his daughter Roshni, both injured witnesses, have reiterated the allegations in their statements recorded under Section 180 BNSS and have attributed specific acts of assault and use of casteist slurs to the appellants at a place within public view. Learned A.G.A. further submits that the medical report prima facie corroborates the ocular version, as Bechan sustained three stitched wounds on the left side of his forehead besides other injuries, while Roshni also sustained two injuries. The informant Bechan has sustained following injuries:- 1. Lacerated wound measuring about 1.5 cm × 0.5 cm on the left side of the forehead, about 4 cm above the left eyebrow, with bleeding on touch. 2. Abraded contused swelling measuring about 4 cm × 3 cm on the left side of the head, about 1 cm above the left ear; red in colour. Referred to District Hospital for further examination and treatment. 3. Lacerated wound measuring about 5 cm × 0.3 cm with contused swelling on the forehead, about 2 cm above the root of the nose, red in colour. 4. Abrasion measuring about 15 cm × 0.5 cm on the nose, about 0.5 cm below the root of the nose, red in colour. CRLA No. 6906 of 2026 2 5. Abraded contused swelling measuring about 4 cm × 3 cm on the posterior aspect of the head, about 8 cm away from the left ear. Opinion: All injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object. Injury No. 2 was referred for further opinion; the remaining injuries were opined to be simple in nature and fresh. It is argued by learned A.G.A. that the nature of the injuries or the alleged triviality of the dispute cannot be a ground for discarding the prosecution case at the stage of cognizance. Whether the allegations are ultimately established by reliable and admissible evidence is a matter for consideration during trial. Accordingly, learned A.G.A. submits that the challenge raised by the appellants is premature and that no interference is warranted at this stage. 9. Accused-appellants Shilpa and Shubham are named in the First Information Report along with co-accused Shivangi. The FIR specifically alleges that all the accused persons, including the appellants, assaulted the complainant/informant and his daughter Roshni with lathi and danda, causing injuries to them. The genesis of the altercation is stated to be the plucking of peas from the field. The informant and his daughter namely Bechan and Roshni in their statements recorded under Section 180 BNSS have made specific and distinct allegations against the appellants regarding the assault and use of casteist slurs at a place within public view. The alleged occurrence took place in the pea field. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the injuries sustained are simple in nature and that the dispute arose out of a trivial incident. However, at the stage of registration of an FIR and taking cognizance, the gravity of the injuries or the alleged triviality of the cause of the occurrence is not determinative, provided the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence. Perusal of the medical report shows that Bechan sustained three stitched wounds over left side of forehead, besides five other injuries in the form of contusions and an abraded contusion. Two injuries were also sustained by Roshni. The medical evidence, prima facie, corroborates the statements of the injured witnesses and the allegations contained in the FIR. Whether the allegations are ultimately proved is a matter to be determined at the appropriate stage of trial. At the stage of taking cognizance, a meticulous appreciation of evidence is neither warranted nor permissible. CRLA No. 6906 of 2026 3 10. Considering the specific allegations made by the injured witnesses, coupled with the medical evidence, the learned trial court has rightly taken cognizance and summoned the appellants. Accordingly, no interference is called for. 11. The criminal appeal is, therefore, dismissed. September 29, 2026 Asha CRLA No. 6906 of 2026 4 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad