Satish Dixit v. Kumar

and perused the record. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is also present. 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 appellant with the prayer to quash/set aside the charge sheet dated 16.03.2023 in SST No. 311 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 1144 of 2022, under Sections 420, 504, 506, 384, 406 IPC and Section 22 of the UP Regulation of Money lending Act, 1976 and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(5-A) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Auraiya, District Auraiya as well as the cognizance order dated 4.12.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Auraiya. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that no offence against the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intentions for the purposes of harassment. is disclosed and the appellant Per contra, the learned AGA opposed the appeal and submitted that at the stage of summoning the accused, the Magistrate/Court dealing with the matter is required to apply judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence to find-out as to whether prima-facie case has been made out to summon the accused or not.

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 2 CRLA No. 9661 of 2024 dismissed. From the perusal of 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. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court. 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 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

Moreover, the applicant has got a right of discharge as the case may be, before the court below and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court. The prayer for quashing the proceedings of case, charge sheet as well as cognizance/summoning order is refused. However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders within 30 days before the court below and apply for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. With the aforesaid directions, this criminal appeal is finally disposed off. October 14, 2025 RavindraKSingh (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad