Allahabad High Court

1. Heard Mr. Avinash Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (1) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short 'the SC/ST Act') has been preferred by the appellants with the prayer to set-aside the impugned order dated 11.09.2025 passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act) Saharanpur in Special Session Trail No. 59 of 2019 (State vs. Ankit & others), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 452, 376D, 504, 506 IPC & 3(2)(Va) & 3(1)(r)(s) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur, pending in the court of Special Judge (S.C./S.T.Act) Saharanpur.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that it is a counter blast case. Earlier, on 4.3.2019, complainant and his wife committed mar-pit with Smt. Poonam wife of co- accused Ramesh @ Naresh on 4.3.2019 and in the said incident the present appellants- Ankit, Tahir, Naresh and others saved her regarding which against complainant and his wife a NCR No.17 of 2019 has been lodged. Thereafter, on 6.3.2019 only in counter blast and create pressure, opposite party no.2 filed an 2 CRLA No. 9688 of 2025 application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the present appellants with a false and vague allegation. On 6.4.2019, the court below passed the order and treated the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint case. Thereafter, on

6.5.2019, considering the statement of the complainant and other witnesses under Section 200/202 Cr.P.C. summoned the appellants. Being aggrieved, the appellants challenged the summoning order dated 22.11.2019 before this Court in Criminal Appeal No.11710 of 2023 and co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 5.3.2024 disposed of the same directing the appellants to move discharge application before the court below concerned. In pursuance to the order dated

5.3.2024, on 28.3.2024, the appellants moved discharge application before the court below which was partly allowed on

11.9.2025, discharging the appellants from the offences under Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (P.A.) Act. while maintaining the charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 452, 376D, 504, 506 IPC &3(1)(r)(s) SC/ST Act, hence, the present appeal has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 11.9.2025. Further submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that the impugned order dated 11.9.2025 is perverse, illegal and arbitrary and is passed against the evidence on record and the same is liable to be set-aside/quashed.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer and has submitted the court concerned after applying its judicial mind has passed the impugned order on the basis of evidence on record. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the appeal having no force is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order.

6. The parameters for grant of relief of discharge are well settled by a catena of judicial precedent. The Hon'ble Supreme 3 CRLA No. 9688 of 2025 Court in the case of P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398 held that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame charge but the Judge should exercise his judicial mind and discretion to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. It was further clarified that the Judge should be satisfied that the evidence produced by the prosecution before the Court discloses suspicion that the accused has committed the crime.

7. In the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. The State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that in exercising powers under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the settled position of law is that the Judge while considering the question of framing the charge under the said section has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out and whether the materials placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained to the Court, then in such a case the Court will be fully justified in framing the charge and proceed with the trial. On the other hand, if the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before the Court gives rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion then the Judge will be fully justified in discharging the accused.

8. It is trite law that at the stage of discharge of the accused, the Magistrate / Court dealing with the matter is required to apply judicial mind only with a view to find-out as to whether prima- facie case has been made out against the accused or not. The Court at this stage is not required to analyze the material on record to find-out as to whether the matter may lead to conviction or not. Sufficiency of materials for the purpose of conviction is not required. The Court / Magistrate is not required to analyze the evidence on merits but to scrutinize the evidence only with a view as to whether sufficient grounds exist to initiate criminal proceedings in respect of the offence 4 CRLA No. 9688 of 2025 which is said to have been committed (Vide : 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 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283).

9. I have gone through the impugned order as well as submissions advanced by the parties. Impugned order itself reflects that charges against the accused have already been framed and the grounds taken for discharge cannot be considered at this stage as truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the evidence produced by the accused can be adjudged during trial. The impugned order passed by the court below is well in conformity in law and does not suffer from error of illegality, irregularity and warrant any interference by this Court.

10. The instant appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. October 29, 2025 Krishna* (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.)

1. Heard Mr. Avinash Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (1) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short 'the SC/ST Act') has been preferred by the appellants with the prayer to set-aside the impugned order dated 11.09.2025 passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act) Saharanpur in Special Session Trail No. 59 of 2019 (State vs. Ankit & others), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 452, 376D, 504, 506 IPC & 3(2)(Va) & 3(1)(r)(s) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur, pending in the court of Special Judge (S.C./S.T.Act) Saharanpur.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that it is a counter blast case. Earlier, on 4.3.2019, complainant and his wife committed mar-pit with Smt. Poonam wife of co- accused Ramesh @ Naresh on 4.3.2019 and in the said incident the present appellants- Ankit, Tahir, Naresh and others saved her regarding which against complainant and his wife a NCR No.17 of 2019 has been lodged. Thereafter, on 6.3.2019 only in counter blast and create pressure, opposite party no.2 filed an 2 CRLA No. 9688 of 2025 application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the present appellants with a false and vague allegation. On 6.4.2019, the court below passed the order and treated the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint case. Thereafter, on

6.5.2019, considering the statement of the complainant and other witnesses under Section 200/202 Cr.P.C. summoned the appellants. Being aggrieved, the appellants challenged the summoning order dated 22.11.2019 before this Court in Criminal Appeal No.11710 of 2023 and co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 5.3.2024 disposed of the same directing the appellants to move discharge application before the court below concerned. In pursuance to the order dated

5.3.2024, on 28.3.2024, the appellants moved discharge application before the court below which was partly allowed on

11.9.2025, discharging the appellants from the offences under Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST (P.A.) Act. while maintaining the charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 452, 376D, 504, 506 IPC &3(1)(r)(s) SC/ST Act, hence, the present appeal has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 11.9.2025. Further submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that the impugned order dated 11.9.2025 is perverse, illegal and arbitrary and is passed against the evidence on record and the same is liable to be set-aside/quashed.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer and has submitted the court concerned after applying its judicial mind has passed the impugned order on the basis of evidence on record. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the appeal having no force is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order.

6. The parameters for grant of relief of discharge are well settled by a catena of judicial precedent. The Hon'ble Supreme 3 CRLA No. 9688 of 2025 Court in the case of P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398 held that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame charge but the Judge should exercise his judicial mind and discretion to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. It was further clarified that the Judge should be satisfied that the evidence produced by the prosecution before the Court discloses suspicion that the accused has committed the crime.

7. In the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane vs. The State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that in exercising powers under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the settled position of law is that the Judge while considering the question of framing the charge under the said section has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out and whether the materials placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained to the Court, then in such a case the Court will be fully justified in framing the charge and proceed with the trial. On the other hand, if the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before the Court gives rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion then the Judge will be fully justified in discharging the accused.

8. It is trite law that at the stage of discharge of the accused, the Magistrate / Court dealing with the matter is required to apply judicial mind only with a view to find-out as to whether prima- facie case has been made out against the accused or not. The Court at this stage is not required to analyze the material on record to find-out as to whether the matter may lead to conviction or not. Sufficiency of materials for the purpose of conviction is not required. The Court / Magistrate is not required to analyze the evidence on merits but to scrutinize the evidence only with a view as to whether sufficient grounds exist to initiate criminal proceedings in respect of the offence 4 CRLA No. 9688 of 2025 which is said to have been committed (Vide : 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 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283).

9. I have gone through the impugned order as well as submissions advanced by the parties. Impugned order itself reflects that charges against the accused have already been framed and the grounds taken for discharge cannot be considered at this stage as truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the evidence produced by the accused can be adjudged during trial. The impugned order passed by the court below is well in conformity in law and does not suffer from error of illegality, irregularity and warrant any interference by this Court.

10. The instant appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. October 29, 2025 Krishna* (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.)