CRLA/8062/2025 of BAGEDU ALIAS RAMANSH RAJ SINGH Vs STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8062 of 2025 Court No. - 51 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1.  Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Grijesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The present appeal under Section 14A-1 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed to quash the cognizance order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST Act, Chandauli in Special Session No. 781 of 2025 (State Vs. Begedu @ Ramanshraj Singh & Ors.) arising out of Case Crime No. 52 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 333, 352 & 76 of B.N.S. and Section 3(1)(da), 3(1) (dha) and 3 (2) (va) of the S.C./S.T. Act. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no offence is made out against the appellant and that the present prosecution has been instituted with a mala fide intention to cause harassment. 4. In the absence of any of the grounds recognized by the Supreme Court which may justify the quashing of the complaint or the impugned proceedings, the prayer for quashing the same is refused, as no abuse of the process of the Court is made out. The summoning court is vested with sufficient powers to discharge the accused even before the stage of framing of charges, if, for reasons to be recorded, it considers the charge to be groundless. 5. As requested, the appellant is permitted to appear before the concerned court within 20 days from today through counsel and move an application seeking discharge. 6. No coercive measures shall be adopted against the appellant for a period Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Dinesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, G.A. Bagedu Alias Ramansh Raj Singh .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) of 20 days from today or till the filing of the discharge application, whichever is earlier. 7. If the concerned court, after hearing the counsel for the accused, is persuaded to take the view that the accused ought not to have been summoned and that the charge is groundless, it shall not abstain from discharging the accused merely on the ground that the material available at the time of summoning is the same as that available at the time of consideration of the discharge application. 8. On the other hand, if the court, after hearing the counsel for the accused, holds the view that the accused has been rightly summoned and that the material on record does not indicate the charges to be groundless, it shall pass an order to that effect and proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. It shall also be at liberty to adopt such measures as are permissible in law to secure the presence of the accused. 9. With the aforesaid observations, this appeal stands disposed of. May 6, 2026 Akbar CRLA No. 8062 of 2025 2 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad