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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; prayer to set aside the charge sheet and cognizance/summoning order refused, appellant directed to pursue discharge application before the trial court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) SC/ST Act should succeed in setting aside Charge Sheet No. 122 of 2018 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 19.06.2019 — i.e., whether no offence is disclosed against the appellant and the prosecution is mala fide harassment warranting quashing of the proceedings.

Court's answer

On the material on record, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the appellant; all submissions raised at the bar relate to disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated by this Court, since at this stage only a prima facie case is examined in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur, Bhajan Lal, P.P. Sharma and Zandu Pharmaceutical, and the disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

Ratio / Principle

The appellant retains his right of discharge, as the case may be, before the court below and is free to take all his submissions in a discharge application before the trial court; hence interference by this Court is unwarranted.

Key takeaways

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the case as well as the cognizance/summoning order is refused, and accordingly the criminal appeal is dismissed.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Court No. 86), Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav (single judge), Criminal Appeal No. 11121 of 2025 (Mohit v. State of U.P. and Another), decided December 2, 2025 — Criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act seeking setting aside of Charge Sheet No. 122 of 2018 dated 05.10.2018 (PS Badgaon) and cognizance order dated 19.06.2019 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Saharanpur in Special Case No. 118 of 2019 (State v. Pradeep and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 65 of 2017 under Sections 147, 148, 452, 506, 436, 427 I.P.C. and 3(2)3 S.C./S.T. Act — DISMISSED. Holding: on the material on record it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the appellant; the appellant's contentions are disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated at this stage, where only a prima facie view is taken in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (A.L.R. 1960 S.C. 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 accused retains the right to press a discharge application with all submissions before the trial court. Prayer for quashing refused.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11121 of 2025

Mohit

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Keshari Nath Tripathi .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 86

HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant 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 Charge Sheet No. 122 of 2018 dated 05.10.2018 as well as cognizance order dated 19.06.2019 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Saharanpur in Special Case No. 118 of 2019 (State Vs. Pradeep and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 65 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 452, 506, 436, 427 I.P.C. and 3(2)3 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Badgaon, District- Saharanpur, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Saharanpur.

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 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. 11121 of 2025

2

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.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.

Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed .

(Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.)

December 2, 2025 Krishna*

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