Pradeep Pandey vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Pradeep Pandey vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing refused; however, if the appellant appears and surrenders before the court below and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in accordance with law, and the criminal appeal is finally disposed off with these observations.

Issue for consideration

Whether the cognizance order dated 12.9.2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sonbhadra over charge sheet no. 657 of 2024 in Session Case 782 of 2025 (arising from Case Crime no. 607 of 2024, under section 304A IPC and section 3(2)(Va) of the SC/ST Act) should be set aside/quashed, on the appellant's contention that no offence is disclosed against him and the prosecution has been instituted mala fide for purposes of harassment.

Court's answer

From the perusal of the material on record, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the appellant/applicant; all submissions made at the bar relate to disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated by this Court; at this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen, in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq.

Ratio / Principle

The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage; the applicant retains a right of discharge before the court below and is free to take all his submissions in a discharge application before the trial court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act preferred by Pradeep Pandey seeking to set aside/quash the cognizance order dated 12.9.2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sonbhadra over charge sheet no. 657 of 2024 dated 19.11.2024, submitted in Session Case 782 of 2025 (State v. Pradeep Pandy) arising from Case Crime no. 607 of 2024 under section 304A IPC and section 3(2)(Va) of the SC/ST Act, P.S. Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra. Counsel contended that no offence was disclosed and the prosecution was instituted mala fide for harassment. The Court held that on the material on record it cannot be said that no offence is made out; the submissions relate to disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated by the High Court; only a prima facie case is to be seen in light of the Supreme Court's law in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866), State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Cr.) 426), State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma (1992 SCC (Cr.) 192) and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq (2005 SCC (Cr.) 283). The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage, and the applicant remains free to press all submissions through a discharge application before the trial court. The prayer for quashing was refused, with a provision that on the appellant's surrender before the court below his bail prayer would be considered in accordance with law; the criminal appeal was finally disposed off.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10638 of 2025

Pradeep Pandey

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Vinod Kumar .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 86

HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

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

2.This Criminal appeal under Section 14-A (1) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (in short of 'the SC/ST Act) has been preferred by the appellants with the prayer to set aside/quash the impugned cognizance order dated 12.9.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sonbhadra over the charge sheet no. 657 of 2024, dated 19.11.2024 in Session Case 782 of 2025 (State Vs. Pradeep Pandy) submitted in Case Crime no. 607 of 2024, under section 304A IPC and 3 (2) (Va) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra.

3.The contention of the 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 for the purposes of harassment. The appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. The appellant has no concern with the alleged incident.

4.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 applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions 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.IR. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of

CRLA No. 10638 of 2025

2

Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, and 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 before the court below and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.

5.The prayer for quashing the impugned order of the aforementioned case is refused .

However, it is provided that if the appellant appears and surrenders before the court below and applies of bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.

7.With the aforesaid observations this Criminal appeal is finally disposed off.

(Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.)

November 19, 2025 A.

Digitally signed by :- AFAQ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad