HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2462 of 2026 Court No. - 51 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants in the Court today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and the learned counsel opposite party no.2. 3. The present appeal has been filed with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 5th February, 2026 passed by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Agra in Case No. 339 of 2025 (Swevata Vs. Saurabh Verma & Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 577 of 2024, under Sections 323, 376, 511, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3 (1)da, 3 (1) dha and 3 (2) (5) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989, Police Station-Sikandara, District-Agra. 4. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellants are innocent, as the present first information report implicating the appellants is false and fabricated with ulterior motive. The present first information report lodged by opposite party no.2 is nothing but a bundle of lie and the same has been lodged only for exploiting the appellants by indulging their names in a fake, false and frivolous case. The entire prosecution story as unfolded in the first information report is absolutely a self-made story projected by opposite party no.2 in harass the appellants. It is further submitted that for the alleged incident dated 8th June, 2024, the instant first information report/complaint has been lodged by opposite party no.2 after three months i.e. on 7th September, 2024 for which no plausible explanation has been given. He has further submitted that such incident has never taken place. The real fact is that there was business transaction between the husband of opposite party no.2, who is Sub-Divisional Magistrate and due to money, the present false criminal proceedings have been initiated by opposite party no.2 against the appellants in collusion with her husband. Since due to money, the husband of the Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ajay Kumar, Shubham Kumar, G.A. Saurabh Verma And 2 Others .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) opposite party no.2 used to harass and threaten the appellant no.1 who is doing business of silver, therefore, he has made complaint against the husband of opposite party no.2 under Section 115 (2), 352, 351 (3), 108, 318 (4), 308 (2) and 61 B.N.S., Police Station-Nai Ki Mandi, District-Agra. In counter blast to the said proceedings, the instant criminal case has been engineered against the appellants. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that after statutory investigation, since the Investigating Officer found the allegations made by the oppose party no.2 against the appellants to be false, therefore, he has submitted final report against them. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A. have opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the application for lodging of the first information report has been lodged after delay of thee months, is concerned, the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has placed reliance upon the contents of the first information report lodged by opposite party no.2 against the appellants in which the delay in lodging of the first information report has satisfactorily been explained. 7. He also submits that the complaint made by appellant no.1 against the husband of opposite party no.2 on 17th August, 2024 is for another incident and the same has no concern with the present criminal proceedings. 8. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present criminal appeal including the impugned summoning order. 9. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that no offence against the appellant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention and as a counter blast to the proceedings initiated by appellant no.1 against the husband of opposite party no.2. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. 10. Since the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence, the same can only be decided after conclusion of the trial by examining oral as well as documentary evidence adduced during the course of trial. 11. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the appellant at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the CRLA No. 2462 of 2026 2 disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and lastly, State of U.P. Vs. Akhil Sharda & Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 820. 12. In the opinion of the Court if the Magistrate finds that the criminal case or complaint is supported with material evidence and there appears prima facie case to have been made out that will be the sufficient ground for summoning as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Chandra Dev Singh Vs. Prakash Chandra Bose reported in ACR 1964 (1) 639 and Smt. Nagbba Vs. Viranna Shivlingappa Konjalgi & Others reported in 1976 (13) ACC 22 (SC). 13. In the present case, he trial court while passing the impugned summoning order has referred to the statements of the victim/opposite party no.2 recorded under Sections 180 and 183 B.N.S.S., wherein the victim has stated that on the date of the incident i.e. 8th June, 2024 between 11:00 to 11:30 p.m., he along with her husband and children had gone to Sky Restaurant, Sikandra, to celebrate Mukesh Kumar's wedding anniversary. The appellant no.1 had come there with his wife, Durgesh, and sister. When the victim went to the restaurant washroom at the time of the incident, appellant no.1 forcibly entered there. Appellant no.1 had taken off his underwear and pants. When the victim saw him, she screamed, but he gagged her and tried to rape her. When the victim refused, he beat her up, abused by using cast indicated words, and threatened to kill her and her. The trial court has also found that the same version has also been reiterated in the protest petition filed by victim/opposite party no.2. The trial court has also recorded the statement of independent witness, namely, Mukesh, who supports the version of the victim/opposite party no2. 14. On the basis of aforesaid statements and contents made by the victim in the first information report as well as in the protest petition, the trial court has prima faice opined that offences under sections 376 along with 511, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act appear to be made out against the accused Saurabh Verma and the offences under sections 323, 504, 506 of IPC and sections 3(1)d, 3(1)d of SC/ST Act appear to be made out against the accused Mrs. Durgesh Verma and Lata Verma. Therefore, the final report No. 280/2024 dated 17.10.2024 sent by the investigating officer is liable to be cancelled and the protest petition of the plaintiff is liable to be accepted. CRLA No. 2462 of 2026 3 15. After deeper scrutiny, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is based on well detailed discussion of the documentary material and evidence on record. As such, this Court finds that the Magistrate has rightly summoned the accused-appellants for facing trial and there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. The delay in lodging of the first information report has also been explained by learned counsel for opposite party no.2 referred to above. As such, the impugned order is correct and the same is liable to be confirmed. 16. The prayer for quashing the aforesaid summoning order as well as entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused. 17. The present criminal appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. April 21, 2026 Sushil/- CRLA No. 2462 of 2026 4 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad