SUMIT YADAVversusSTATE OF UP AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1205 of 2026

Sumit Yadav
                                                             .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                           .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)              :   Atul Yadav, Saurabh Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s)             :   G.A., Raj Raghuvanshi

Court No. - 93
                      HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for opposite
party no.2 and learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14A(1) of S.C. & S.T.
Act by the appellants challenging charge-sheet dated 12.07.2025 and the
summoning order dated 06.10.2025, passed by Additional District &
Sessions/Special Judge, S.C.& S.T. Act in Case No.877 of 2025 arising out
of Case Crime No. 0134 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352 BNS and
Sections 3(1)(n), 3(1)(k) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Ramnagar, District
Varanasi,

3. In the FIR, the appellant, Sumit Yadav, along with co-accused Amit
Yadav and one unknown person, was named as an accused. It was alleged
that on 23.06.2025 at about 9.00-10.00 p.m., while the informant/victim
Ravi Sonkar was returning from the library after studying, the accused
persons caused injuries to him by fists and kiks, lathi-danda. Further it has
been alleged that accused persons used castiest slur saying khatik, harijan,
chamar, siyar etc.

4. Briefly, the grounds of the appeal are that the impugned summoning order
dated 06.10.2025, passed by Additional District & Sessions/Special Judge,
S.C.& S.T. Act is wholly illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The
impugned order is based on surmises and conjunctures as such same is liable
to be quashed.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been
                                                          CRLA No. 1205 of 2026
                                2


falsely implicated in the present case. The prosecution version is doubtful
and requires careful scrutiny, particularly in view of the admitted existence
of a cross-case, Case Crime No. 170 of 2025, lodged by the appellant against
the informant and others arising out of the same occurrence dated
23.06.2025. Since both sides sustained injuries, the genesis and manner of
the occurrence are disputed and the possibility of false implication cannot be
ruled out. It is further contended that the allegations regarding the alleged
casteist/derogatory words have been exaggerated and that the essential
ingredients of the offences under the S.C. & S.T. Act are not prima facie
established merely by making a general allegation. The impugned order,
therefore, deserves to be quashed.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned counsel
for the State submit that the impugned summoning/cognizance order does
not suffer from any illegality or perversity. The FIR specifically names the
appellant Sumit Yadav, along with co-accused Amit Yadav and an unknown
person, and contains specific allegations of assault and use of
casteist/derogatory words against the informant Ravi Sonkar. It is submitted
that during investigation, the informant specifically stated that the appellant
was studying in the same library and had closed the channel gate. When the
informant asked him to open the gate, the appellant became annoyed,
assaulted him and used the casteist/derogatory expression specifically
attributed to him. The injured witness also specifically attributed the assault
to the appellant, including assault by a key ring. The prosecution version is
further corroborated by the medical evidence, as six injuries were found on
the person of the injured Ravi Sonkar. The statement of the doctor also
supports the prosecution case. The existence of the cross-case does not, by
itself, demolish the prosecution version; rather, it establishes that the same
occurrence resulted in cases from both sides and that injuries were sustained
by both parties. In view of the specific allegations contained in the FIR, the
statement of the informant/injured witness, the medical evidence
corroborating the prosecution version, and the statement of the doctor,
sufficient prima facie material exists to proceed against the appellant. The
learned Trial Court has, therefore, rightly taken cognizance and summoned
the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be
dismissed.

7. In his statement recorded by the Investigating Officer, the informant
stated that the appellant was also studying in the same library and had closed
                                                                                            CRLA No. 1205 of 2026
                                                                    3


                                    the channel gate. When the informant asked him to open the gate, the
                                    appellant became annoyed, assaulted him and used a casteist/derogatory
                                    word, which was specifically mentioned in the FIR. The injured Ravi Sonkar
                                    specifically attributed the assault to the appellant by key ring. The medical
                                    examination corroborates the prosecution version, as six injuries were found
                                    on the person of the injured. It is also admitted that the appellant lodged a
                                    cross-case, being Case Crime No. 170 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 190,
                                    115(2), 352, 351(2), 304(2) and 308(3) B.N.S. against the informant Ravi
                                    Sonkar and others. The date of occurrence in both cases is the same, i.e.,
                                    23.06.2025, thereby establishing the existence of a cross-case, with injuries
                                    having been sustained by both sides. At the stage of taking
                                    cognizance/summoning, the court is not required to conduct a meticulous
                                    examination of the evidence or determine the ultimate truth of the
                                    allegations. The court is only required to ascertain whether the material on
                                    record discloses a prima facie case.

                                    8. In view of the specific allegations in the FIR, the statement of the
                                    informant, the medical evidence and the statement of the doctor, a prima
                                    facie case is made out against the appellant. The Trial Court has, therefore,
                                    rightly taken cognizance against the appellant Sumit Yadav.


                                    9. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is rejected.

                                    September 9, 2026
                                    Asha
                                                                                               (Santosh Rai,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
ASHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad