HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3750 of 2026 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1. Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the appellants is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14A(1) of S.C. & S.T. Act by the appellants to quash the impugned cognizance order dated 25.03.2026, passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Bulandshahr, as well as the impugned charge-sheet dated 07.03.2026 in Session Case No. 1254 of 2026 (State Vs. Deepak and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 03 of 2026, under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 352 and 118(1) B.N.S. and Sections 3(1)(da) and 3(1)(dha) of the S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Police Station Agota, District Bulandshahr. 4. Tersely, as per the FIR version, the accused-appellants allegedly assaulted the victim and other women while they were preparing cow-dung cakes (uple) on Gram Samaj land and caused injuries to them. They have also used caste related derogatory wards. 5. Briefly, the grounds of the appeal are that the impugned cognizance order dated 25.03.2026, passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Bulandshahr 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. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Vijay Pal Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bipin Kumar, G.A., Pavanesh Kumar Yadav Deepak Kumar And 2 Others .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) cognizance order and charge-sheet are unsustainable in law. It was contended that no independent witness has been examined in support of the prosecution case and the allegations are supported only by interested witnesses. The FIR was lodged after unexplained delay, which casts doubt upon the prosecution version. The medical examination was conducted about two hours after the alleged incident, and the injury reports appear to have been manipulated. The Investigating Officer failed to properly scrutinize the statements of the victim and witnesses and, without proper consideration of the material, wrongly submitted the charge-sheet against the appellants. The appellants neither used any caste-related filthy words against the informant nor caused the alleged injuries; hence, the ingredients of the offences under the SC/ST Act are not established. Accordingly, the impugned cognizance order dated 25.03.2026 and charge-sheet dated 07.03.2026 are liable to be quashed. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State submitted that the prosecution case is supported by the statements of the informant, injured witness and other witnesses, which corroborate the allegations made in the FIR. The witnesses have specifically stated that the appellants used casteist slurs against the victim and assaulted her and Pooja, causing injuries. It was further submitted that the injury reports of Kasturi Devi and Pooja are available on record and support the allegation of assault. During investigation, the Investigating Officer examined the concerned doctor who had prepared the injury reports. Thus, the plea that the medical evidence was manipulated is a matter of defence and cannot be adjudicated at the stage of cognizance. It was argued that the appellants were aware of the caste identity of the victims and that the allegations, ocular evidence and medical evidence disclose a prima facie case against them. The learned Special Judge has, therefore, rightly taken cognizance and summoned the appellants. At the stage of cognizance, the Court is only required to examine whether a prima facie case is made out and is not required to undertake a detailed appreciation of the evidence. 8. In the first information report allegation is that the accused appellants have caused injury when the informant and other females were preparing animal-dung cakes (uple) on Gram Samaj land. From perusal of the statements of the injured persons and other witnesses, it appears that they have corroborated the allegations contained in the FIR. Accused-appellants CRLA No. 3750 of 2026 2 used casteist slurs against the victim, despite being aware of her caste identity. The injury reports of Pooja and Kasturi Devi are on record, wherein incised wounds have been noted. Although learned counsel for the appellants contended that the medical reports were doubtful and had been fraudulently prepared but the Investigating Officer examined the concerned doctor who prepared the reports and considered the medical evidence during investigation. 9. In view of the statements of the injured witnesses, corroborative ocular evidence and medical evidence available on record, a prima facie case is made out against the appellants. Accordingly, the trial court rightly took cognizance and summoned them. At the stage of taking cognizance, the Court is required only to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists for initiating proceedings, and a detailed appreciation of evidence is not warranted at this stage. 10. Hence, this criminal appeal is rejected. September 8, 2026 Asha CRLA No. 3750 of 2026 3 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad