Saurabh Pandey @ Chhotu Pandey and Another vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Saurabh Pandey @ Chhotu Pandey and Another vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1606 of 2026

Saurabh Pandey @ Chhotu Pandey And Another

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Anil Kumar Mishra, Om Prakash Pathak
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 51

HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and Sri Amrit Raj, learned A.G.A for the State as also perused the record.

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned summoning order dated 24,07.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T.Act), Kanpur Nagar in Sessions trial no. 1075 of 2025, (State Vs. Chhotu pandey and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0495, under section 323, 325, 504, 308 I.P.C. & 3(1)(द) and 3 (1) (ध), 3(2)(va) Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Cruelty) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015), Police Station Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the allegations in the FIR and the subsequent statement of the informant recorded during investigation raise reasonable doubt about the prosecution story. The respondentinformant has alleged that he was assaulted and abused by the appellants on 22.09.2023 at a guest house at about 11:00 p.m., when the appellants were demanding to pay for their alcoholic drinks. The motive disclosed in the FIR is that the alleged assault was committed after the respondent refused to meet their demand.

On the other hand, when the statement of the informant was recorded by the Investigating Officer, no such demand was mentioned. Rather, it was alleged that the appellants, along with other accused persons, entered the guest house and, without any premeditation, suddenly started assaulting him. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the allegations, prima facie,

CRLA No. 1606 of 2026

2

appear to be suspicious and not convincing. The occurrence is stated to have taken place at around 11:30 p.m., and it is difficult to comprehend how the appellants were identified by the informant under such circumstances.

Learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant submitted that minor variations in the statement of the informant are immaterial at this stage. Such detailed scrutiny of statements, akin to a trial, is not required at the stage of taking cognizance. The informant has categorically stated in the FIR as well as in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that he was abused by the appellants by using castiest slurs. The place of occurrence is a guest house where other customers were present, which prima facie indicates that the incident took place within public view, hence, the appellants are not entitled to any relief.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From a perusal of the contents of the FIR as well as the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is apparent that the alleged occurrence took place suddenly between the parties at a guest house on the night of 22.09.2023. Prima facie, it does not appear from the allegations that the assault by the appellants was committed with the intent to insult or intimidate the informant on account of his being a member of the SC/ST community.

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The summoning order dated 24,07.2025 in Sessions trial no. 1075 of 2025, (State Vs. Chhotu pandey and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 0495, insofar as they relate to offences under section 3(1)(द) is hereby quashed. However, the proceedings in respect of the remaining offences under Sections 323, 325, 504, 308 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (ध), 3(2)(va) Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Cruelty) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015) shall continue in accordance with law.

March 18, 2026 Ujjawal

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

Digitally signed by :- UJJAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad