HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8581 of 2026 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State. 2. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant with a prayer to set aside the entire proceedings, charge-sheet dated 4.7.2025 as well as the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 22.9.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Agra in Session Case No.2005 of 2025 (State vs. Awadhesh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.32 of 2024, under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 352, 351(2) B.N.S. and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S.- Jaitpur, District- Agra. 3. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that the FIR does not disclose any specific casteist slur or derogatory caste-related words allegedly used by the accused-appellant. It is further submitted that the allegations are general and omnibus in nature, and no specific role has been assigned to the individual accused. The prosecution has sought to improve upon the allegations in the FIR through the subsequent statements of the injured witnesses recorded during investigation. It is, therefore, contended that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not prima facie established against the accused-appellant and that the impugned order suffers from illegality and infirmity and is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Uma Dutt Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ratnesh Pratap Singh, G.A. Promod Kumar .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) submits that the allegations made in the FIR are duly supported by the statements of the injured witnesses recorded during the course of investigation. It is submitted that the injured witnesses have consistently stated that the accused-appellants not only caused injuries to them but also used casteist slurs at a place within public view. The medical evidence further corroborates the ocular version, as four persons sustained a total of thirty-four injuries in the incident. It is, therefore, contended that a clear prima facie case is made out against the accused-appellants and that, at the stage of cognizance, the evidence is not required to be meticulously scrutinized. The impugned order has been passed after considering the material available on record and calls for no interference by this Court. 5. In the FIR, accused-appellants Awadhesh, Raju, Hassan Lal, Saurav (shopkeeper), Pramod (who was working at the marriage hall), along with 5-7 other persons, have been named. It has been alleged in the FIR that the accused-appellants, in furtherance of their common object, caused injuries to the victims and also used abusive language. Although no specific casteist slur has been mentioned in the FIR, the statements of the injured persons recorded during the course of investigation disclose that the accused-appellants caused injuries to them and also used casteist slurs at a place within public view. 6. Admittedly, four persons sustained injuries in the incident. Injured Ravi sustained ten injuries, injured Ishu sustained eleven injuries, injured Ajay sustained nine injuries, and injured Sushant sustained four injuries. Thus, a total of thirty-four injuries are alleged to have been caused by the accused-appellants in furtherance of their common object. The statements of the injured persons are duly corroborated by the medical evidence available on record. At the stage of taking cognizance, the trial court is not required to meticulously examine or appreciate the evidence as if conducting a trial. The only question to be considered at this stage is whether the material available on record discloses a prima facie case against the accused persons. 7. For the reasons recorded above, this Court finds that the learned trial court has rightly summoned the accused-appellant under the aforesaid CRLA No. 8581 of 2026 2 provisions. The impugned order is well reasoned and does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. 8. The instant appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. 9. 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 23, 2026 RA CRLA No. 8581 of 2026 3 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad