Mohd. Farooq vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Mohd. Farooq vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal admitted; notice to respondent no.2 through the CJM concerned with steps within a week; interim direction that no coercive process shall be adopted against the appellant till the next date of listing; matter listed on 06.05.2026 alongwith Criminal Appeal Nos. 4195 of 2025 and 891 of 2026. Substantive challenge left open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order of cognizance and summoning dated 12.02.2026 was passed mechanically without proper consideration of the appellant's role, as contended by the appellant who claims he is neither named in the FIR nor in the Section 161 statement and that no performance of any operation is alleged against him. +1 more

Court's answer

The criminal appeal is admitted.

Ratio / Principle

Notice is to be issued to respondent no.2, to be served through the CJM concerned, with steps to be taken within a week.

Key takeaways

As interim protection, no coercive process shall be adopted against the appellant till the next date of listing.ratio¶19
The matter is to be listed on 06.05.2026 alongwith Criminal Appeal Nos. 4195 of 2025 and 891 of 2026.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal No. 966 of 2026 (Mohd. Farooq v. State of U.P. and another), High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, decided on April 8, 2026 by Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J. Appeal preferred under Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order of cognizance and summoning dated 12.02.2026 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Sitapur in Case Crime No. 355 of 2025 under Sections 105 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act and Section 34(2) of the National Medical Commission Act, Police Station Mahmudabad, District Sitapur. Counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant, an OT Technician, is neither named in the FIR nor in the complainant's Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement, that no performance of any operation is alleged against him, that the charge under Section 3(1)(v) SC/ST Act is not made out, and that process was issued mechanically. The Court admitted the appeal, directed notice to respondent no.2 through the CJM concerned with steps within a week, listed the matter on 06.05.2026 alongwith Criminal Appeal Nos. 4195 of 2025 and 891 of 2026, and directed that no coercive process shall be adopted against the appellant till the next date of listing.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 966 of 2026

Mohd. Farooq

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Arun Kumar Saxena, Adarsh Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 27

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State respondent no.1 and perused the record.

Instant criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the impugned order of cognizance and summoning dated 12.02.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Sitapur. By the said order, the learned trial court has taken cognizance of the offence and summoned the appellant on the basis of the impugned charge-sheet without properly considering the nature of the accusations and the facts of the case, arising out of Case Crime No. 355 of 2025, under Section 105, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act and Section 34(2) of the National Medical Commission Act, Police Station Mahmudabad, District Sitapur.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is neither named in the FIR nor in the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He is only an OT Technician. It is not alleged that he has performed any operation. He has been falsely implicated in this case. The charge under Section 3(1) (v) SC/ST Act is not made out against the appellant on the basis of FIR and the version of the complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Learned trial court has issued process against him in mechanical manner without considering his role in the alleged

CRLA No. 966 of 2026

2

offence.

Admit.

Issue notice to respondent no.2 which shall be served through CJM concerned.

Steps be taken within a week.

List on 06.05.2026 alongwith Criminal Appeal Nos. 4195 of 2025 and 891 of 2026.

No coercive process shall be adopted against the appellant till the next date of listing.

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

April 8, 2026 dk/

Digitally signed by :- DEVENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench