HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6451 of 2026 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants/applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State. 2. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants with a prayer to set aside the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 16.3.2026 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act, Siddharth Nagar in Case Crime No.154 of 2025 (State vs. Dhirendra Yadav @ Dheeru and others), under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S.- Mohana, District- Siddharth Nagar. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the summoning order has been passed mechanically without proper appreciation of the material available on record. It is contended that the alleged incident arose out of a dispute relating to harvesting and threshing of the paddy crop, and a cross-case bearing Case Crime No.164 of 2025 has also been registered with respect to the same occurrence, wherein both sides sustained injuries. It is further submitted that the appellants have been falsely implicated due to the existing dispute, no offence under the provisions of the SC/ST Act is made out, and, therefore, the impugned summoning order is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2, as well as learned AGA, opposed the appeal and submitsthat the FIR specifically names the Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Surendra Mohan Mishra Dhirendra Yadav @ Dheeru And 2 Others .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) accused appellants and contains clear and specific allegations regarding their involvement in the incident. It is further submitted that the statements of the informant and the injured witnesses are consistent with the allegations made in the FIR, and the medical evidence also corroborates the injuries sustained by the injured persons. They further submit that the existence of a cross-case arising out of the same incident does not, by itself, discredit the prosecution version, particularly when both sides sustained injuries. It is also submitted that the material available on record prima facie discloses the commission of the alleged offences, including the allegation of use of caste-related abusive words within public view. Accordingly, the trial court has rightly taken cognizance and summoned the accused appellants, and no interference with the impugned order is warranted. 5. In the FIR, three accused persons, namely Dhiru Yadav, Manoj Yadav and Viru Yadav, are named. It is alleged that the accused appellants caused injuries to the injured persons when the informant reached the field of Budhram. According to the FIR, there was an understanding between the parties that, after harvesting the paddy crop and during the process of threshing, the husk would be taken by the informant while the rice would be given to the owner of the disputed land. It is alleged that the accused appellants opposed the said arrangement and thereafter assaulted the informant and the injured persons. The medical reports disclose injuries sustained by Tulsiram, Vishal Kannaujia and Prince Kannaujia. The statement of the informant specifically attributes the role of the accused appellants in causing injuries with hard and blunt objects, and the medical evidence corroborates the allegations made in the FIR and the statements of the injured witnesses. A cross-case arising out of the same incident, being Case Crime No.164 of 2025 dated 9.11.2025, was also registered and that both sides sustained injuries. The existence of the cross-case is, therefore, an admitted fact. The material collected during investigation, including the allegation that accused Dhiru Yadav used caste-related abusive words within public view, prima facie supports the prosecution case. 6. For the reasons recorded above, this Court finds that the learned trial court has rightly summoned the accused-appellants under the aforesaid CRLA No. 6451 of 2026 2 provisions. The impugned order is well reasoned and does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. 7. The instant appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. 8. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to serve a copy of this order by FAX/e-mail to the court concerned through District & Sessions Judge concerned within 48 hours. September 18, 2026 RA CRLA No. 6451 of 2026 3 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad