Dismissed¶25

Vedram and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 May 2026CRLA/271/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of summoning order; complaint case; cross case / counter blast FIR; disputed questions of fact; Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction; prima facie case at summoning stage; statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.; injury reports; delay in FIR explained; SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act; P.S. Karhal, District Mainpuri; Allahabad High Court; CRLA No. 271 of 2025; Madan Pal Singh, J.; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; the prayer for quashing the summoning order dated 4th October, 2023 and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 02 of 2022 was refused and the impugned order was confirmed. ¶25

Vedram and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted; the prayer for quashing the summoning order dated 4th October, 2023 and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 02 of 2022 was refused and the impugned order was confirmed.

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning order dated 4th October, 2023 and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 02 of 2022 (Kumari Sarina Vs. Vedram & Others) are liable to be quashed.

¶9

Court's answer

Submissions relating to disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated upon by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.; such arguments involving factual disputes and appraisal of evidence can only be decided after conclusion of the trial, and at this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

If the Magistrate finds that the criminal case or complaint is supported with material evidence and a prima facie case appears to have been made out, that is sufficient ground for summoning, as held by the Apex Court.

¶18

Key takeaways

On the record, being a cross case with injuries on both sides, the Magistrate had sufficient grounds and reasons to summon the appellants-accused based on documentary evidence (injury reports of the brothers of opposite party no.2), the statements of witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and the complaint version, having found no material contradictions between the complaint and the witness statements.ratio¶19
The impugned summoning order is based on a well detailed discussion of the documentary material and evidence on record; there is no illegality or impropriety in it; the delay in lodging the first information report stands explained; hence the order is correct and liable to be confirmed.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal dismissed (Allahabad High Court, Madan Pal Singh, J.). The Court refused to quash a summoning order dated 4th October, 2023 passed in Complaint Case No. 02 of 2022 alleging offences under Sections 452, 354, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(da) and 3(1)(dha) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S. Karhal, District Mainpuri. Held: (i) submissions raising disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and can be decided only after trial; at the summoning stage only a prima facie case is to be seen; (ii) where a complaint is supported by material evidence, that is sufficient ground for summoning; (iii) in this cross case, the Magistrate rightly summoned the accused on the basis of injury reports, statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and the complaint version, with no material contradictions; (iv) the delay in lodging the FIR stood explained. Reliance placed on R.P. Kapur, Bhajan Lal, P.P. Sharma, Zandu Pharmaceutical, Akhil Sharda, Chandra Dev Singh and Nagbba.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 271 of 2025

¶3

Vedram And 2 Others

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Rahul Shekhar
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 51

¶7

HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and thelearned A.G.A. for the State. Despite the fact that notice has been served upon opposite party no.2 as per office report dated 21st April, 2026, no one has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 even in the revised reading of the list.

¶9

The present appeal has been filed with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 4th October, 2023 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 02 of 2022 (Kumari Sarina Vs. Vedram & Others), under SEctions 452, 354, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3 (1) (da) and 3 (1) (dha) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989, Police Station-Karhal District-Mainpuri.

¶10

Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellants are innocent, as the present complaint case is false and fabricated with ulterior motive. The present complaint case filed by opposite party no.2 is nothing but a bundle of lie and the same has been filed only for exploiting the appellants by indulging their names in a fake, false and frivolous case. The entire prosecution story as unfolded in the complaint case is absolutely a selfmade story projected by opposite party no.2 in order to harass the appellants. It is further submitted that initially for the incident dated 6th October, 2021 at 05:00 p.m. the appellant no.2 lodged a first information report against the brothers of opposite party no.2, namely, Ramlakhan and Umesh and in the said incident, the hand of the appellant no.2 has been fractured. The present complaint case has been engineered against the appellants as counter blast to the criminal proceedings initiated by appellant no.2. It is lastly submitted that the injuries sustained by the brothers of opposite party no.2 are simple in nature.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. He submits that it is a cross case filed by both the parties

¶12

CRLA No. 271 of 2025

¶13

¶14

against each other in which persons of both sides sustained injuries and at this stage only prima facie case has to be seen.

¶15

Since the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant involves factual disputes and appraisal of evidence, the same can only be decided after conclusion of the trial by examining oral as well as documentary evidence adduced during the course of trial.

¶16

I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. and perused the material available on record including the impugned order.

¶17

From the perusal of the 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 at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and lastly, State of U.P. Vs. Akhil Sharda & Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 820 .

¶18

In the opinion of the Court if the Magistrate finds that the criminal case or complaint is supported with material evidence and there appears prima facie case to have been made out that will be the sufficient ground for summoning as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Chandra Dev Singh Vs. Prakash Chandra Bose reported in ACR 1964 (1) 639 and Smt. Nagbba Vs. Viranna Shivlingappa Konjalgi & Others reported in 1976 (13) ACC 22 (SC).

¶19

In the present case, it is admitted that it is a case of cross case and each parties have initiated cases against each other for the alleged incident in which persons of both sides have sustained injuries. This Court is of the present opinion that in the present case, the Magistrate on the basis of documentary evidence like injury reports of the brothers of the opposite party no.2 available on record along with the statements of witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and the version as unfolded in the complaint, has found sufficient grounds and reasons to summon the appellants-accused and accordingly, the trial court has summoned them to face trial. The trial court has not found any material contradictions between the contents of the complaint and the statements of witnesses which supported

CRLA No. 271 of 2025

by injury report.

After deeper scrutiny, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is based on well detailed discussion of the documentary material and evidence on record. As such, this Court finds that the Magistrate has rightly summoned the accused-appellants for facing trial and there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. The delay in lodging of the first information report has also been explained by learned counsel for opposite party no.2 referred to above. As such, the impugned order is correct and the same is liable to be confirmed.

¶24

The prayer for quashing the aforesaid summoning order as well as entire proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.

¶25

The present criminal appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. May 5, 2026 Sushil/-

¶26

(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

¶27

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

Vedram and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vedram and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sunita Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Baijnath Tyagi and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Harbhajan Singh vs State of Up and 2 Others

Sandeep and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanju Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Vivek Yadav vs State of U.P. and 2 Others