Shashank Mani Tripathi @ Golu Tiwari and Another vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Shashank Mani Tripathi @ Golu Tiwari and Another vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief: prayer for quashing the proceedings and the cognizance/summoning order refused; however, if the appellants appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail, their bail prayer is to be considered and decided in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 4.2.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Ballia is liable to be set aside on the ground that no offence is disclosed against the appellants and the prosecution has been instituted with mala fide intentions for harassment. +1 more

Court's answer

On a perusal of the material on record and the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the appellants.

Ratio / Principle

All the 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, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.

Key takeaways

The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage; the applicant has a right of discharge before the court below and is free to take all submissions in a discharge application before the trial court.ratio¶14
The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the case as well as the cognizance/summoning order is refused.ratio¶15
Protective direction: if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) SC/ST Act against cognizance/summoning order dated 4.2.2025 (Sessions Case No.747 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.161 of 2024, PS Fefna, District Ballia, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha, 3(2)Va SC/ST Act): HELD, on perusal of the record it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the appellants; the submissions raised disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated by the High Court at this stage, where only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of 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; the accused's disputed defence cannot be considered at this stage and he is free to raise all contentions in a discharge application before the trial court. Prayer for quashing refused; if the appellants appear and surrender and apply for bail, their bail prayer shall be considered in accordance with law. Appeal disposed of.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10870 of 2025

Shashank Mani Tripathi @ Golu Tiwari And Another

noer	Versus		.....Appel	lant(s)
State of U.P. and Another			.....Respon	dent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Abhishek Pandey	Pandey,	Krishna	Kant
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 86

HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A for the State as well as perused the record.

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred to setaside the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 4.2.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Ballia in Sessions Case No.747 of 2025 (State Vs Shashank Mani Tripathi @ Golu & another) arising out of Case Crime No.161 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. & 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha, 3(2) Va of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Fefna, District- Ballia.

The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that no offence against the appellant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intentions for the purposes of harassment.

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 dismissed.

From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the

CRLA No. 10870 of 2025

2

case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the appellants. 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.L.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 (Para10) 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 as well as cognizance/summoning order is refused.

However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrenders before the court below and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid directions, this criminal appeal is finally disposed off.

(Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.)

November 25, 2025

Krishna*

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