HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1747 of 2026 Court No. - 51 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for appellants, learned counsel for informant and Sri R.K. Singh, learned AGA for State. 2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order dated 17.01.2026 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Basti in Sessions Case No.19 of 20006 (State Vs. Bhanu Maurya and others) arising out of case Crime No.05 of 2003, under sections 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC and Section 3(1) (X) SC/ST Act, Police station Mehdawal District Sant Kabir Nagar. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that their discharge application was wrongly rejected by the learned Trial Court without considering the fact that the FIR against them was lodged by the informant, who falsely claimed himself to be a member of the SC/ST community. The Court has wrongly relied upon the documents submitted by the informant/respondent. The appellants will suffer unnecessary harassment by being made to face trial for offences under the SC/ST Act. There is neither rhyme nor reason to drag the appellants into trial at the instance of the informant, who is not a member of the SC/ST community. Hence, the impugned order rejecting the discharge application of the appellants is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for the informant/respondent have submitted that the accused is not permitted to submit his defence or documents at the stage of framing of charge. At the stage when the Court is considering a discharge Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Kamalesh Kumar Nishad, Ram Awadh Maurya Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Sunil Kumar-I Bhanu Maurya And Another .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) application, it is required to confine itself to the material and evidence collected during the investigation. The Court cannot go beyond the material collected during the investigation. If the Investigating Officer has not found any such evidence during the investigation to indicate that the informant does not belong to the SC/ST community, then such an objection cannot be raised by the accused at the stage of discharge. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 6. It is well-settled law that the defence of the accused cannot be considered either at the stage of discharge or at the stage of framing of charges. Therefore, the objections raised by the appellants in their discharge application are untenable. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court does not require any interference. 7. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. March 19, 2026 Mukesh CRLA No. 1747 of 2026 2 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad