Rishi Kant Alias Rishu Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Rishi Kant Alias Rishu Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief: the prayer to quash the summoning order was refused. Protective direction only — if the appellant appears and surrenders within 30 days before the court below and applies for bail, his bail prayer shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned summoning order dated 14.8.2024 passed in Complaint Case S.C. No. 2251 of 2023 ought to be set aside/quashed on the appellant's contention that no offence is disclosed against him and the prosecution is mala fide/harassment.

Court's answer

On the material on record, at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant; the submissions raised are disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated by this Court, and 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, Bhajan Lal, P.P. Sharma and Zandu Pharmaceutical.

Ratio / Principle

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 such submissions in a discharge application before the trial court.

Key takeaways

The prayer for quashing the impugned summoning order is refused.ratio¶5
Protective direction: if the appellant appears and surrenders within 30 days before the court below and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.ratio¶6
With the aforesaid observations, the criminal appeal is finally disposed of.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.), Criminal Appeal No. 11309 of 2024, decided 13.10.2025 — Rishi Kant alias Rishu v. State of U.P. and Another. Appeal under Section 14-A(1) SC/ST Act against summoning order dated 14.8.2024 of the IInd Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Dehat, in Complaint Case S.C. No. 2251 of 2023 (Km. Reshma v. Rishu) under Section 376 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act. Held: at the quashing stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of R.P. Kapur, Bhajan Lal, P.P. Sharma and Zandu Pharmaceutical; disputed questions of fact and the accused's defence cannot be adjudicated, and the accused may raise all submissions in a discharge application before the trial court. Quashing prayer refused; appeal finally disposed of with a direction that if the appellant surrenders within 30 days and applies for bail, his bail application be considered in accordance with law.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11309 of 2024

Rishi Kant Alias Rishu

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Arvind Kumar Trivedi
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 summoning order dated 14.8.2024 passed by the IInd Additional District & Session Judge/Special Judge SC.ST Act, Kanpur Dehat in Complaint Case S.C. No. 2251 of 2023 (Km. Reshma Vs. Rishu) under Section 376 IPC and Section 3 (2) (V) SC/ST Act, P.S. Rasoolabad, District Kanpur Dehat.

3.The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicants 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.

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 Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, and Zandu Pharmaceutical

CRLA No. 11309 of 2024

2

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 within 30 days from today 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.)

October 13, 2025

A.

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