Omi @ Om Prakash and Another Vs State of Up and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4454 of 2024

¶3

Omi @ Om Prakash And Another

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)		: Sunil Kumar Pathak
Counsel for Respondent(s)		: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 86

¶7

HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

¶8

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 set-aside the impugned order dated 27.02.2023 whereby the charge has been framed against the appellants in Special Session Trial No. 32 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime NO. 33/22, under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Bhopa, District Muzaffar Nagar.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

¶10

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants/appellants that the present prosecution of the applicants at the hands of opposite party no. 2 is nothing but has been instituted with malafide intention to harass the applicants. It is further contended that no offence against the applicants is made out from the allegations set out by opposite party no. 2. He has further submitted that it transpires that order has been passed illegally in a routine manner and without application of judicial mind, hence without considering nature of evidence on record and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA has contended that charges have now

¶12

CRLA No. 4454 of 2024

¶13

2

¶14

been framed and the impugned order does not suffer from any error of law and moreover in case the applicants have any grievance, they will have various opportunities for redressal of their grievance during course of trial.

¶15

Indisputably, it is open to this Court to quash the charges framed by the trial court but the same cannot be done by weighing the correctness, sufficiency of the evidence. The principle to be adopted in such cases should be that if the entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed would it constitute the offence or not. It is only at the stage of the trial that truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the evidence can be adjudged. Therefore, it will not be proper to truncate or snip the proceeding at the stage of framing of charge. The impugned order passed by the court below is well in conformity in law and does not suffer from error of illegality, irregularity and warrant no interference by this Court.

¶16

Thus, in the case in hand, the trial court has rightly passed the impugned order. There is no illegality, perversity or impropriety in the impugned order. The criminal appeal has no force and is accordingly dismissed.

¶17

(Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.)

¶18

October 8, 2025 RavindraKSingh

¶19

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

Omi @ Om Prakash and Another v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omi @ Om Prakash and Another v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases