Allahabad High Court

SANJAY AWASTHIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 18 March 2026
Bench: SANDEEP CHAUDHARY JOINT REGISTRAR JUDICIAL

Holding

The appeal is dismissed; the summoning order under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act stands.

Summary

The appellant Sanjay Awasthi appealed against a cognizance and summoning order issued by a Special Judge under Section 14‑A(1) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The FIR alleged that the appellant and three others, armed with clubs, sticks and an axe, assaulted the informant, her husband and children following a dispute over a loudspeaker at a religious procession. The appellant contended that he was not involved, that three co‑accused were dropped from the charge sheet, that independent witnesses testified he only tried to intervene, and that the medical report showed only simple injuries, not the axe‑wound claimed. The prosecution argued that the injured parties were medically examined and corroborated the assault, and that the investigation confirmed an altercation and injuries. The Court examined the investigation reports, witness statements and medical evidence, concluded that an assault did occur and that there was no basis to set aside the summoning order, and therefore dismissed the appeal. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the summons order intact.

Issues considered

Whether the summoning order under Section 14‑A(1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is vitiated by alleged insufficiency of evidence.
Whether the appellant can be exonerated on the basis of independent witness statements and the nature of injuries reported.
Whether the cross‑FIR lodged by a relative of an exonerated accused affects the validity of the original FIR and the proceeding.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 336, 354Ka, 504, 506
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(1), 3(2)

Subjects

SC/ST Act
Section 14-A
criminal appeal
assault
FIR
injury report
evidence assessment
summoning order
IPC offences

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10746 of 2025

Sanjay Awasthi
.....Appellant(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Deepak Singh, Diksha Duggal
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Shiv Nath Singh

Court No. - 51
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Shiv Nath Singh, learned
counsel for the respondent/informant and Shri R.K. Singh, learned AGA
for the State.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of The Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been
preferred by the appellant with a prayer to allow the appeal and set aside
the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 05.08.2025 passed by
learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Kanpur
Dehat in Sessions Case No.788 of 2025 (State Vs. Sanjay Awasthi)
arising out of Case Crime No.34 of 2024, under Section 336, 504, 506,
354Ka I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5a SC/ST Act, Police Station-Chaubeypur,
District-Kanpur Nagar, as well as charge sheet No.138 of 2024 dated
27.05.2024 and also to quash the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case.

3. Briefly stated, a first information report was lodged against the
appellant and three other accused persons. Informant stated in her FIR
that certain altercation between children of two parties occurred at about
4:30 pm on 28.1.2024. Enraged by the said dispute, all the accused
persons including the appellant arrived at her house. They were armed
with clubs, sticks and axes. They dragged the informant outside her house
and assaulted her. When her husband Sandeep stopped them from doing
so, they also assaulted him. Informant has an injury of axe on her head.
Her son Sahil and her daughter Shivani also sustained injuries.
CRLA No. 10746 of 2025
2

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the first
information report was lodged against four persons. However, the name
of three accused persons were dropped by the Investigating Officer. One
of accused Guddu Awasthi was exonerated by I.O. by considering that an
FIR against the informant was also lodged by wife of Guddu Awasthi.
Statement of three independent witnesses recorded during the
investigation reveals that appellant was not involved in the incident.
These independent witnesses have categorically stated that dispute
occurred after the husband of informant objected to the sound of
loudspeaker installed at religious procession. Informant's husband
Sandeep was disturbed to by the said sound and he asked Guddu @ Arun
Awasthi to remove the said loudspeaker. However, he replied that he will
not remove, rather Sandeep can make his demand from the Committee
member. Even these witnesses have stated that quarrel had taken place
between the children of society and the appellant and other accused
persons were only trying to intervene between them. Appellant was not
involved in the incident and has been falsely implicated by the
respondent/informant.

5. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that
allegation in the FIR is that an injury by axe was also inflicted. However,
no such injury was reported in the injury report of the alleged injured
persons. Doctor has revealed that all the injured persons have sustained
simple injuries. Even the injured person were also examined next day
after the incident which itself substantiates that injuries were simple in
nature. Allegations in the first information report are concocted and
exaggerated. Hence, the impugned order summoning the appellant to face
trial for the offences they did not commit, is liable to be set aside.

6. Learned AGA and the learned counsel for the informant submitted that
informant and her children had sustained injuries in the incident. They
were medically examined by the doctor and injuries by hard and blunt
object were found on their persons. Informant as well as other two injured
persons have corroborated the prosecution story. The occurrence of
incident cannot be denied as injury report clearly reveals that injured
persons as well as informant were assaulted by the appellant and other
accused persons. Hence, the impugned summoning order does not warrant
CRLA No. 10746 of 2025
3

any interference.

7. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and perused the entire record including the case diary.

8. The contention on behalf of the appellant that a cross FIR by the wife
of Guddu Awasthi (exonerated during the investigation) that was lodged
against the informant, was also considered. Learned counsel for the
appellant has disclosed about the finding recorded by the Investigating
Officer in the investigation carried out in the FIR lodged against the
informant. The statement of witnesses recorded during the investigation
of both FIRs reveals the same fact that certain dispute occurred after the
husband of the informant demanded to remove the loudspeaker causing
him disturbance. Investigation in both cases itself reveals that certain
dispute between the children had taken place. Totality of circumstance
which appears from the investigation carried out in respect of both FIRs
clearly indicates that some altercation has taken place. Moreover, injury
report of the injured persons prepared on the next date also indicates that
injured have sustained injuries. Therefore, there is no reason to discard
the prosecution allegations at this stage. Hence, the impugned order
summoning the appellant does not suffer from any infirmity and it
requires no interference.

9. This criminal appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
March 19, 2026
SK

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…