Dismissed¶17

Shavi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2025CRLA/11694/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.) dismisses criminal appeal under S.14-A(1) SC/ST Act seeking quashing of charge sheet dated 25.03.2025 and cognizance/summoning order dated 31.05.2025 (Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Farrukhabad) in S.T. No. 194 of 2025 / case crime No. 79 of 2025, P.S. Kadarigate, Farrukhabad, under BNS ss.140(1), 351(2), 127(4), 64, SC/ST Act s.3(2)v and IT Act s.67; only prima facie case examined per R.P. Kapur, Bhajan Lal, P.P. Sharma, Zandu Pharmaceutical; disputed facts left to discharge application/trial.

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; all submissions made at the bar relate to disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court. ¶15

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet dated 25.03.2025, the cognizance/summoning order dated 31.05.2025 and the entire proceedings of Session Trial No. 194 of 2025 should be quashed on the contention that no offence against the appellant is disclosed and the prosecution was instituted with mala fide intentions for the purposes of harassment. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

¶15

Ratio / Principle

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, Bhajan Lal, P.P. Sharma and Zandu Pharmaceutical.

¶15

Key takeaways

The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.ratio¶15
The accused has a right of discharge before the court below and is free to take all the submissions in a discharge application before the trial court.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act by the appellant seeking quashing/set aside of the charge sheet dated 25.03.2025 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 31.05.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Farrukhabad, and the entire proceedings of Session Trial No. 194 of 2025, arising out of case crime No. 79 of 2025, P.S. Kadarigate, District Farrukhabad, under Sections 140(1), 351(2), 127(4) and 64 of BNS, Section 3(2)v of the SC/ST Act and Section 67 of the IT Act, on the plea that no offence is disclosed and the prosecution is mala fide and instituted to harass the appellant. Held, dismissing the appeal: on the material on record it cannot be said at this stage that no offence is made out; the submissions advanced were disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon by the High Court; only a prima facie case falls for scrutiny 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.; the disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage, and the accused is free to take all submissions in a discharge application before the trial court. Prayer for quashing the proceedings, charge sheet and cognizance/summoning order refused.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11694 of 2025

¶3

Shavi

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Rajesh Kumar, Saurabh Pandey : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 86

¶7

HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶9

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (1) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short 'the SC/ST Act') has been preferred by the appellants with the prayer to quash/set aside the impugned charge sheet dated 25.03.2025 and cognizance/summoning order dated 31.05.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Farrukhabad and the entire proceedings of Session Trial No. 194 of 2025, arising out of case crime No. 79 of 2025, under Sections 140(1), 351(2), 127(4), 64 of BNS and 3(2)v of SC/ST Act and Section 67 of IT Act, P.S. Kadarigate, District Farrukhabad.

¶10

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.

¶11

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. Moreover, the statement of the victim said to have been recorded under Section 183 BNSS specifically shows that appellant committed rape with the

¶12

CRLA No. 11694 of 2025

¶13

¶14

victim and also video-graphed her nude photo and make viral the same. 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.

¶15

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 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.I.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 (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 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.

¶16

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

¶17

The criminal appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶18

December 16, 2025 RavindraKSingh

¶19

(Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.)

¶20

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

Shavi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shavi v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Shagufta Naeem vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Akanksha Rai vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Shankar Rai vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Brij Kishor vs State of U.P. and Another

Arvind Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Preet vs State of U.P. and Another