HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1774 of 2026 Court No. - 51 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and learned A.G.A for the State as also perused the record. 2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 10.12.2025, passed by learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Bhadohi- Gyanpur, in Criminal Complaint Case No. 148 of 2023 (Kalidas Pasi Versus Anand Kumar and other), Under Sections-323, 504, 506, 427, 354 of I.P.C., & sections-3 (1) r, 3 (1) s of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Unj, District- Bhadohi. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a false proceeding has been instituted against him by the respondent-complainant, who is habitually lodging false prosecutions against him. There is a land dispute between the parties, for which a civil suit, O.S. No. 1113 of 2023 (Ramjag and others vs. Anand Kumar and others), was instituted by a family member of the complainant. Another FIR was also lodged against the appellant in Case Crime No. 107 of 2023, under Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) of the SC/ST Act and Sections 504, 323, 147 IPC. The intention of the respondent is to exert pressure upon the appellants by filing multiple prosecutions. The allegations in the complaint are false and fictitious. The allegations are not supported by any independent witnesses. No independent witness was produced by the complainant during the proceedings. Hence, the impugned order taking cognizance against the appellant is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA submitted that the Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Adarsh Bind, Pramod Kumar Maurya, Ram Soorat Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Surya Kant Dubey Anand Kumar And 8 Others .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) version of the complaint as well as the civil suit filed by the respondent- informant are identical, which further fortifies the claim of the prosecution. The wife of the informant was beaten twice by the appellants. The appellants are continuously interfering with the peaceful possession of the respondent. Hence, the impugned order taking cognizance against the appellants does not suffer from any infirmity. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The allegation in the complaint case is that the appellants arrived at the construction site of the respondent and started assaulting them. They also demolished the pillars and plinth of the under construction house. Similar allegations have been averred in the civil suit filed by the respondent. The allegations in the complaint as well as in the civil suit demonstrate that a land dispute exists between the parties. Hence, the allegations prima facie are not liable to be discarded. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is accordingly upheld. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. March 19, 2026 Ujjawal CRLA No. 1774 of 2026 2 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- UJJAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad