Sajid Mansoori and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sajid Mansoori and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Prayer to quash the summoning order refused; appellant directed that if he appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days and applies for bail, his bail prayer shall be considered and decided in accordance with law; appeal finally disposed off.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned summoning order dated 25.10.2023 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Court no.2, Etawah in Complaint Case No. 482 of 2023 should be quashed/set aside. +2 more

Court's answer

The applicant retains the right of discharge before the court below and is free to advance all his submissions in a discharge application before the trial court.

Ratio / Principle

From the 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.

Key takeaways

All submissions made at the bar relate to disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court.ratio¶14
At this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen, in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court.ratio¶14
The prima facie assessment is made in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866) and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Cr.) 426).ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal No. 7781 of 2024 (Sajid Mansoori and another v. State of U.P. and another), High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J., Court No. 86), decided October 7, 2025 — Appeal under Section 14-A (1) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act praying to quash/set aside the summoning order dated 25.10.2023 of the Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Court no.2, Etawah in Complaint Case No. 482 of 2023 (Amit Kumar v. Sajid Mansoori and another) under Sections 323, 504, 506, 3(1)(rs), 3(2)5A SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Police Station Civil Lines, District Etawah, with a further prayer to stay proceedings. Court held that at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out; all bar-submissions were disputed questions of fact not adjudicable at this stage; disputed defence of the accused left for later stages; only a prima facie case examined in light of Supreme Court law in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866), State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Cr.) 426), State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma (1992 SCC (Cr.) 192) and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (para-10) (2005 SCC (Cr.) 283). Prayer to quash refused; applicant retains right of discharge before trial court; if he appears and surrenders within 30 days and applies for bail, prayer to be considered and decided in accordance with law; appeal finally disposed off.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7781 of 2024

Sajid Mansoori And Another

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Lavkush Dixit .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 86

HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

Heard Mr. Anmol, learned Advocate holding brief of Mr. Lavkush Dixit, learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A for the State as well as perused the record.

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 appellant with the prayer to quash/set aside the impugned summoning order dated 25.10.2023 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Court no.2, Etawah in Complaint Case No. 482 of 2023 (Amit Kumar Vs Sajid Mansoori and another), under Sections 323, 504, 506 3(1) (rs), 3(2)5A SC/ST (Ρ.Α.), Act, Police Station- Civil Lines, District- Etawah with a further prayer to stay further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

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.

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 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,

CRLA No. 7781 of 2024

2

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.

The prayer for quashing the summoning order is refused.

However, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, his 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.)

October 7, 2025

Krishna*

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