Rekha Devi vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10359 of 2025

Rekha Devi

.....Appellant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Vibhor Arora, Vinit Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 86

¶6

HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has pointed out that notice has been duly served upon opposite party no. 2, but none has appeared on his behalf.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record.

¶9

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred seeking to set aside the impugned charge sheet dated 30.07.2025 as well as the cognizance/summoning order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSOI, Jaunpur in Case No. 238 of 2025 ( State vs. Ratan Yadav and another ), under Sections 352 and 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 , Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act , and Sections 3(2)(va) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act , arising out of Case Crime No. 221 of 2025, Police Station Chandwak, District Jaunpur.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has been falsely implicated, as the main allegations pertain to the co-accused, who is the husband of the appellant. It is further submitted that the offences under Sections 65(1) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita are not included in the schedule among the specified offences contemplated under Section 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST Act , thereby rendering the summoning of the appellant unsustainable in law. It is also urged that the learned Special Judge passed the impugned summoning order mechanically, without applying judicial mind and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants, thereby vitiating the order as an abuse of the process of law.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the appeal on factual grounds but fairly did not dispute the legal position concerning the requirement of procedural fairness and the necessity of providing an opportunity of hearing before passing an order of cognizance or summoning.

¶12

Upon hearing the rival submissions and perusing the record, particularly the impugned summoning order, this Court finds merit in the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant regarding procedural irregularity in the manner the order was passed.

¶13

CRLA No. 10359 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

It is a well-settled principle of law that while taking cognizance and summoning an accused, the Magistrate or Special Judge must apply his/her judicial mind to the facts of the case, the available material, and the relevant statutory provisions. Moreover, where the applicability of a special statute such as the SC/ST Act is in question, the principles of natural justice require that the process be conducted in a fair and judicious manner.

¶16

The record clearly reveals that the learned Special Judge passed the impugned order of cognizance/summoning without providing an adequate and effective opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties, particularly the appellant, thereby failing to comply with the procedural safeguards mandated by law.

¶17

Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO-I, Jaunpur, is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the court below to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned.

¶18

(Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.)

¶19

November 13, 2025

¶20

Krishna*

¶21

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rekha Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rekha Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sheelu Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonu Gond and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Hema Bhati and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Jyoti Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Mundar Patel Alias Muneendra Kumar Patel Alias Maneendra Kumar Patel and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Umashankar Upadhyay and Another vs State of U.P. and Another