Allahabad High Court

ANJU DEVI AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 6 May 2026
Bench: MADAN PAL SINGH

Holding

The appeal is dismissed as the summoning order cannot be quashed without the presence of Supreme Court‑recognised grounds and no abuse of process is shown.

Summary

The appellants filed an appeal under Section 14A‑1 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 seeking to quash a summoning order dated 08‑08‑2024 issued by the Special Judge in a case involving offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)‑Da, 3(1)‑Dha and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. The appellants alleged that the prosecution was malicious and that no offence was made out against them. 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 prayer to quash the summoning order was refused, but the appellants were permitted to appear before the trial court within 20 days to move an application for discharge. No coercive measures were to be taken against the appellants during this period. The appeal was therefore disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the summoning order under the SC/ST Act can be quashed under Section 14A‑1 in the absence of Supreme Court‑recognised grounds.
Whether the prosecution is an abuse of process warranting quashing of the proceedings.
Whether the trial court may discharge the accused before framing of charges if the charge is deemed groundless.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 504, 506
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14A-1, 3(1) Da, 3(1) Dha, 3(2)(va)

Subjects

SC/ST Act
Section 14A‑1
quash order
summoning order
abuse of process
discharge application
criminal procedure
IPC offences
appeal dismissed

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 12262 of 2024

Anju Devi And 3 Others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ravi Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties 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 summoning order dated 08.08.2024 passed by the Special Judge
(S.C./S.T. Act), Pilibhit in S.S.T. No. 822 of 2024, (State Vs. Ram Kishor
& Ors.) arising out of Case Crime No. 0068 of 2024, under Sections 323,
504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections- 3(1) Da, 3(1) Dha & 3(2)(va) of the S.C./S.T.
Act., Police Station- Kareli, District- Pilibhit.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that no offence is made out
against the appellants 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 appellants are 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 appellants for a period
of 20 days from today or till the filing of the discharge application,
whichever is earlier.
CRLA No. 12262 of 2024
2

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 7, 2026
Akbar
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
MOHAMMAD AKBAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…