Dismissed¶19

Anil Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2025CRLA/11133/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Section 14-A(1) appeal; quashing of cognizance/summoning order; prima facie case at summoning stage; R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal; State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma; Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq; disputed questions of fact not adjudicable; discharge application before trial court; Section 376 IPC; Section 3/4 POCSO Act; Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act; Ghaziabad; Allahabad High Court.

What did the court decide?

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 appellant. ¶14

Anil Sharma vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the cognizance/summoning order dated 10.05.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, and the resulting proceedings in Session Trial No.185 of 2020 were liable to be set aside/quashed in this appeal under Section 14-A(1) SC/ST Act. +1 more

¶11

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 appellant.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

At this stage only the prima facie case is to be seen, in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur, Bhajan Lal, P.P. Sharma and Zandu Pharmaceutical.

¶17

Key takeaways

Submissions relating to disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated by this Court; the disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.ratio¶17
The accused has a right of discharge before the court below and is free to take all his submissions in a discharge application before the trial court.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.) dismissed a criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act seeking setting aside of the cognizance/summoning order dated 10.05.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Rape and POCSO Act), Court No.2, Ghaziabad, in Session Trial No.185 of 2020 (Case Crime No. 684 of 2020; Sections 376 IPC, 3/4 POCSO Act, 3(2)v SC/ST Act, P.S. Indrapuram). Holding: at the summoning stage only a prima facie view is called for, in 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; disputed questions of fact and the accused's defence cannot be considered at this stage, and the accused remains free to press all such submissions through a discharge application before the trial court. Prayer for quashing the proceedings and the cognizance/summoning order refused; appeal dismissed.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11133 of 2025

Anil Sharma

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶7

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

¶8

Court No. - 86

¶9

HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

¶10

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

¶11

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 10.05.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Rape and Pocso Act), Court No.2, Ghaziabad in Session Trial No.185 of 2020 Case Crime No. 684 of 2020, under Section 376 1.P.C. and Section 3/4 Pocso Act and 3(2)V SC/ST Act, Police StationIndrapuram, District- Ghaziabad.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

From the perusal of 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 appellant. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed

¶15

CRLA No. 11133 of 2025

¶16

¶17

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.

¶18

The prayer for quashing the proceedings of case as well as cognizance/summoning order is refused.

¶19

Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed .

¶20

(Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.)

¶21

December 10, 2025 Krishna*

¶22

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

Anil Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jameel Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Charan Devi vs State of U.P. and Another

Surya Pratap Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Jai Hind vs State of U.P. and Another

Nadeem Alias Sonu and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Rizwan vs State of U.P. and Another