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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Prayer for quashing refused; appellants directed that on appearance/surrender before the court below and application for bail, the bail prayer shall be considered and decided in accordance with law; liberty reserved to seek discharge before the trial court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge-sheet dated 12.09.2023 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 06.02.2024 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Deoria should be set aside (quashed). +1 more

Court's answer

On the material on record, 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 upon by this Court.

Key takeaways

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.ratio¶16
The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.ratio¶16
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

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.), Criminal Appeal No. 11464 of 2025 under S. 14-A(1) SC/ST Act: Nadeem alias Sonu and another sought quashing of the charge-sheet dated 12.09.2023 and cognizance/summoning order dated 06.02.2024 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Deoria in Special Session Trial No. 80 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 142 of 2023, PS Tarkulwa, District Deoria (Ss. 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC; S. 3(2)(v-a) SCST Act). Contending mala fides and absence of disclosed offence, the appellants argued the prosecution was harassment-driven. The Court held that on the material on record it cannot be said that no offence is made out; the submissions raised disputed questions of fact not adjudicable by the High Court at this stage; only a prima facie view is required, 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.; the accused's disputed defence is left to a discharge application before the trial court. Quashing was refused; on appearance/surrender and application for bail, the bail prayer is to be decided per law. Appeal finally disposed of on December 10, 2025.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11464 of 2025

Nadeem Alias Sonu And Another

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Yashwant Pratap Singh
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 charge-sheet dated 12.09.2023 as well cognizance/summoning order dated 06.02.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Deoria in Special Session Trial No. 80 of 2024 (State vs. Nadeem @ Sonu and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 142 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 IPC and Section 3(2)(v - a) SCST /Act, Police Station- Tarkulwa, District- Deoria, pending before the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Deoria.

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. 11464 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 surrender 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.)

December 10, 2025

Krishna*

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