HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5003 of 2026 Court No. - 90 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant criminal appeal has been filed against the impugned Summoning Order dated 12.03.2026 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Mathura in the Special Complaint Case No. 67/2025 (Smt. Kamlesh Vs. Jawahar Singh & others) under sections 115(2), 76 of B.N.S. and 3(1)(Da), (Dha) of Scheduled Cast/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station-Maant, District-Mathura along with the entire proceeding of the Complaint Case No. 67/2025 (Smt. Kamlesh Vs. Jawahar Singh & others); pending in the court of Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Mathura. 3. It is alleged by the opposite party no.2/complainant in the complaint that she belongs to the Jatav caste and earns her livelihood by doing labour work. She and her husband, Prem Singh, had worked for ten days for the opposite party, Jawahar Singh Thakur, and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was due towards their wages. It is further alleged that on 24.04.2025 at about 6:00 p.m., when she went to Jawahar Singh's house to demand her wages, he allegedly abused her by using caste-related remarks and called his three sons, namely, Dharmendra, Satyanarayan and Kanhaiya. All four allegedly assaulted the complainant and her husband, abused them and threatened them with dire consequences. It is next alleged that Dharmendra tore the clothes of the complainant and stripped her, while Satyanarayan assaulted her husband with a slipper dipped in a drain. It is also alleged that on 26.04.2025 at about 8:00 a.m., the four opposite parties again intercepted and assaulted the Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Alpika Srivastava, Neeraj Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anirudh Singh, G.A. Jawahar Singh Thakur And 3 Others .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) complainant while she was going to the fields. As no action was taken by the police despite her medical examination and complaint to the S.S.P., Mathura, she approached the court, where her application was registered as a complaint case. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellant no.2- Dharmendra Kumar S/o appellant no.1-Jawahar Singh Thakur has also filed a complaint at police station Maant, District Mathura alleging therein that the marriage of the son of his neighbour, Premveer, was being held, and a tent had been installed in the vacant space near the applicant's house. Due to the gathering, the applicant's family members were busy in making arrangements. It is further alleged that taking advantage of the gathering, on 24.04.2025 at about 7:30 p.m., Kamlesh alias Chamko-opposite party no. 2, wife of Prem Singh entered the house of appellant no. 2 and took Rs. 80,000/-, being the sale proceeds of wheat, kept in an almirah. While she was fleeing, his wife, Smt. Chandrawati, caught her outside the tent. Thereafter, her associates, namely Kailash Chand, Hakim, Vinay son of Gokul Singh, Avadhesh and Sandeep sons of Kailash Chand, came there and tried to free her. Kamlesh alias Chamko severely bit the thumb of the appellant no. 2, causing injury, and fled with the money. When the appellant no.2 raised an alarm and informed them about the theft, the aforesaid persons threatened him that if any action was taken, Kamlesh would implicate them in a false SC/ST Act case; however, no action has been taken on their complaint. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that appellant no. 2 had filed the said complaint and the present complaint is a counterblast to the said incident. It is further submitted that no action has been taken on the appellants' complaint. Hence, the impugned summoning order is liable to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 submits that the complainant has specifically alleged the commission of offences against the appellants, who have been duly summoned by the learned trial court after considering the material on record. It is submitted that the defence version and the alleged counter-complaint involve disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated at the stage of summoning. Accordingly, no interference is warranted with the impugned summoning order. CRLA No. 5003 of 2026 2 7. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, it transpires that the learned trial court has considered the allegations made in the complaint as well as the material collected during the course of the proceedings and, upon being satisfied that a prima facie case is made out against the appellants, has passed the impugned summoning order. 8. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the present complaint has been instituted as a counterblast to the complaint allegedly lodged by appellant no. 2, as well as the defence version regarding the alleged incident of theft, relates essentially to the disputed questions of fact. Such defence pleas cannot be conclusively examined or adjudicated upon at the stage of summoning. The veracity of the respective versions and the evidentiary value of the material relied upon by the parties are matters to be examined at the appropriate stage of the proceedings. 9. At the stage of summoning, the court is required to examine whether the allegations and material on record disclose sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. A meticulous appreciation of evidence or a detailed examination of the defence version is not warranted at this stage. The learned court below has recorded its satisfaction on the basis of the material available before it, and no manifest illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error is apparent in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, no ground for interference is made out. The criminal appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. September 21, 2026 M. Tarik CRLA No. 5003 of 2026 3 (Abdul Shahid,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD TARIK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad