Allahabad High Court

SURJAN LAL VERMA AND 9 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 17 May 2026
Bench: MADAN PAL SINGH

Holding

The court held that there were no sufficient grounds to quash the summoning order and that the appellant must seek discharge through a separate application before the trial court.

Summary

The appellants filed a criminal appeal seeking to quash the summoning and cognizance order dated 08-08-2025 and the entire proceedings of Sessions Case No. 1455 of 2025, which arose from Crime No. 124 of 2025 under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The appellants contended that no offence was made out against them and that the prosecution was instituted with a mala fide intention to harass. The High Court held that none of the Supreme Court‑recognised grounds for quashing a complaint or proceeding were satisfied and that there was no abuse of the court’s process. Consequently, the court refused the prayer to quash the order, but permitted the appellants to appear before the trial court within 20 days to file an application for discharge, and barred any coercive measures during that period. The court directed that if the trial court finds the charge groundless, it may discharge the accused; otherwise, it may proceed with the case as per law. The appeal was therefore disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the summoning/cognizance order dated 08-08-2025 can be quashed on the ground of mala fide prosecution.
Whether the appellant is entitled to relief from the proceedings pending a discharge application.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 191(2), 351(3), 352
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)

Subjects

quash of criminal proceedings
summoning order
discharge application
abuse of process
SC/ST Act
IPC
mala fide prosecution
high court appeal

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11531 of 2025

Surjan Lal Verma And 9 Others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Gaurav Gupta
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 51
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri Gaurav Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and
perused the record. Sri Ramesh Kumar, learned AGA submits that
notice has been duly served upon the opposite party no.2. Despite
service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the opposite party
no.2.

2. The present appeal has been filed to quash the
summoning/cognizance order dated 08-08-2025, as well as the entire
proceedings of Sessions Case No. 1455 of 2025, arising out of Case
Crime No. 124 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3)
BNS and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) 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
CRLA No. 11531 of 2025
2

move an application seeking discharge.

6. No coercive measures shall be adopted against the appellant for a
period 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

9. 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.

10. With the aforesaid observations, this appeal stands disposed of.

(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
May 18, 2026
pks

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…