HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1205 of 2026 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14A(1) of S.C. & S.T. Act by the appellants challenging charge-sheet dated 12.07.2025 and the summoning order dated 06.10.2025, passed by Additional District & Sessions/Special Judge, S.C.& S.T. Act in Case No.877 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 0134 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352 BNS and Sections 3(1)(n), 3(1)(k) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Ramnagar, District Varanasi, 3. In the FIR, the appellant, Sumit Yadav, along with co-accused Amit Yadav and one unknown person, was named as an accused. It was alleged that on 23.06.2025 at about 9.00-10.00 p.m., while the informant/victim Ravi Sonkar was returning from the library after studying, the accused persons caused injuries to him by fists and kiks, lathi-danda. Further it has been alleged that accused persons used castiest slur saying khatik, harijan, chamar, siyar etc. 4. Briefly, the grounds of the appeal are that the impugned summoning order dated 06.10.2025, passed by Additional District & Sessions/Special Judge, S.C.& S.T. Act 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. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Atul Yadav, Saurabh Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Raj Raghuvanshi Sumit Yadav .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) falsely implicated in the present case. The prosecution version is doubtful and requires careful scrutiny, particularly in view of the admitted existence of a cross-case, Case Crime No. 170 of 2025, lodged by the appellant against the informant and others arising out of the same occurrence dated 23.06.2025. Since both sides sustained injuries, the genesis and manner of the occurrence are disputed and the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. It is further contended that the allegations regarding the alleged casteist/derogatory words have been exaggerated and that the essential ingredients of the offences under the S.C. & S.T. Act are not prima facie established merely by making a general allegation. The impugned order, therefore, deserves to be quashed. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned counsel for the State submit that the impugned summoning/cognizance order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. The FIR specifically names the appellant Sumit Yadav, along with co-accused Amit Yadav and an unknown person, and contains specific allegations of assault and use of casteist/derogatory words against the informant Ravi Sonkar. It is submitted that during investigation, the informant specifically stated that the appellant was studying in the same library and had closed the channel gate. When the informant asked him to open the gate, the appellant became annoyed, assaulted him and used the casteist/derogatory expression specifically attributed to him. The injured witness also specifically attributed the assault to the appellant, including assault by a key ring. The prosecution version is further corroborated by the medical evidence, as six injuries were found on the person of the injured Ravi Sonkar. The statement of the doctor also supports the prosecution case. The existence of the cross-case does not, by itself, demolish the prosecution version; rather, it establishes that the same occurrence resulted in cases from both sides and that injuries were sustained by both parties. In view of the specific allegations contained in the FIR, the statement of the informant/injured witness, the medical evidence corroborating the prosecution version, and the statement of the doctor, sufficient prima facie material exists to proceed against the appellant. The learned Trial Court has, therefore, rightly taken cognizance and summoned the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 7. In his statement recorded by the Investigating Officer, the informant stated that the appellant was also studying in the same library and had closed CRLA No. 1205 of 2026 2 the channel gate. When the informant asked him to open the gate, the appellant became annoyed, assaulted him and used a casteist/derogatory word, which was specifically mentioned in the FIR. The injured Ravi Sonkar specifically attributed the assault to the appellant by key ring. The medical examination corroborates the prosecution version, as six injuries were found on the person of the injured. It is also admitted that the appellant lodged a cross-case, being Case Crime No. 170 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 190, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 304(2) and 308(3) B.N.S. against the informant Ravi Sonkar and others. The date of occurrence in both cases is the same, i.e., 23.06.2025, thereby establishing the existence of a cross-case, with injuries having been sustained by both sides. At the stage of taking cognizance/summoning, the court is not required to conduct a meticulous examination of the evidence or determine the ultimate truth of the allegations. The court is only required to ascertain whether the material on record discloses a prima facie case. 8. In view of the specific allegations in the FIR, the statement of the informant, the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor, a prima facie case is made out against the appellant. The Trial Court has, therefore, rightly taken cognizance against the appellant Sumit Yadav. 9. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is rejected. September 9, 2026 Asha CRLA No. 1205 of 2026 3 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad