HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3564 of 2026 Court No. - 51 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. Despite the fact that notice has been served upon opposite party no.2 personally as per office report dated 15th May, 2026, no one appears for the opposite arty no.2 even in the revised reading of the list. 2. The present appeal has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 14th January, 2026 passed by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Prayagraj in Sessions Trial No. 70 of 2026 (State Vs. Deepak Kumar Sahu & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 206 of 20225, under Sections 191 (2), 115 (2), 352, 351 (3), 117 (2) B.NS., and Sections 3 (1) (da), (3)1) (dha) and 3 (2)Va of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Baharia, District-Prayagraj. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that no offence is made out against the appellants and that the present prosecution has been instituted with a mala fide intention to cause harassment. 4. In the absence of any of the grounds recognized by the Supreme Court which may justify the quashing of the complaint or the impugned proceedings, the prayer for quashing the same is refused, as no abuse of the process of the Court is made out. The summoning court is vested with sufficient powers to discharge the accused even before the stage of framing of charges, if, for reasons to be recorded, it considers the charge to be groundless. 5. As requested, the appellants are permitted to appear before the concerned court within 20 days from today through counsel and move an application seeking discharge. 6. No coercive measures shall be adopted against the appellants for a period of 20 days from today or till the filing of the discharge application, whichever is Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Anand Prakash Pandey, Asharfi Lal Gupta, Rajiv Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Deepak Kumar Sahu And 4 Others .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) earlier. 7. If the concerned court, after hearing the counsel for the accused, is persuaded to take the view that the accused ought not to have been summoned and that the charge is groundless, it shall not abstain from discharging the accused merely on the ground that the material available at the time of summoning is the same as that available at the time of consideration of the discharge application. 8. On the other hand, if the court, after hearing the counsel for the accused, holds the view that the accused has been rightly summoned and that the material on record does not indicate the charges to be groundless, it shall pass an order to that effect and proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. It shall also be at liberty to adopt such measures as are permissible in law to secure the presence of the accused. 9. With the aforesaid observations, this appeal stands disposed of. May 18, 2026 Sushil/- CRLA No. 3564 of 2026 2 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad