Appeal against summoning order and rejection of discharge application under SC/ST Act and IPC provisions. Court held evidence sufficiency cannot be weighed at charge-framing stage; impugned orders suffered no illegality. Appeal dismissed with liberty to seek bail on surrender.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10020 of 2025
Mohammad Mohid And Another
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
| State of U.P. and Another | .....Respondent(s) |
|---|---|
| Counsel for Appellant(s) | : Mohammad Danish, Saif Ali Khan |
| Counsel for Respondent(s) | : G.A. |
Court No. - 86
HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.
1.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 summoning order dated 17.5.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Moradabad in Complaint Case no. 10 of 2019, (Smt. Javitri Vs. Shafiurrahman and others), whereby the learned Judge summoned the appellants for the offence under Section 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC and 3 (2) (5Ka) of SC/ST Act. P.S. Mainather, District Moradabad and the order dated 16.9.2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Moradabad in Session Trial no. 388 of 2020 (State Vs. Shafiurrahman @ Guddu and others) whereby the discharge application filed under Section 70-B dated 22.9.2025 was rejected and the court below directed for framing of the charge against the appellants under section 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC and 3 (2) (Va) of SC/ST Act.
2.Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has passed an erroneous and perverse order by rejecting the application moved by the appellants under section 227 Cr.P.C. whereby they have prayed to the court to pass discharge order in favour of the appellants in the aforesaid matter. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the present prosecution of the applicants at the hand of the opposite party no. 2 is nothing but has been instituted with malafide intention to harass the appellants. It is further contended that no offence against the appellants is made out from the allegation set out in the complaint filed by opposite party no.2.
CRLA No. 10020 of 2025
2
without application of judicial mind. hence without considering nature of evidence on record and therefore, the same are liable to be quashed.
5.Per contra, learned A.G.A. has contended that the discharge application moved by the appellants has been rejected and the same does not suffer from any error of lawn and moreover in case the appellants have any grievance, they will have various opportunities for redressal of their grievance during course of trial.
7.Thus, in the case in hand, the trial court has rightly dismissed the argument for discharge of appellants. There is no illegality, perversity or impropriety in the impugned orders. The criminal appeal is accordingly, dismissed.
8.However, it is provided that if the appellants appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.
November 6, 2025 A.
(Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.)
Digitally signed by :- AFAQ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the appellants' discharge application and framing charges under IPC and SC/ST Act sections.
5 provisions across 5 enactments
Mohammad Mohid
Another
State of U.P.
Another
Shekhar Kumar Yadav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
