Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

UMESH CHAUHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided

Holding

The appeal is dismissed; the charge‑sheet and cognizance order are not quashed.

Summary

The appellant, Umesh Chauhan, filed an appeal under Section 14A‑1 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 seeking to quash a charge‑sheet dated 27‑11‑2024 and a cognizance order dated 24‑01‑2025 issued by a Special Judge. The appellant alleged that the prosecution was instituted with a mala fide intention and that no offence was made out against him. The High Court examined whether the grounds recognized by the Supreme Court for quashing a complaint or proceeding were satisfied and found no abuse of the court process. Consequently, the court refused to quash the charge‑sheet, but directed that the appellant may appear before the trial court within 20 days to move a discharge application. The court further directed that no coercive measures be taken against the appellant during this period and that the trial court decide any discharge application expeditiously. The appeal was therefore disposed of without granting the relief sought.

Issues considered

  • Whether the charge‑sheet and cognizance order under the SC/ST Act can be quashed under Section 14A‑1 on the ground of mala fide prosecution.
  • Whether there is an abuse of the process of the court justifying quashing of the proceedings.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • SC/ST Act
  • Section 14A‑1
  • quash of charge‑sheet
  • abuse of process
  • discharge application
  • criminal procedure
  • scheduled castes
  • scheduled tribes

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1592 of 2025

Umesh Chauhan
                                                             .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                           .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)               :    Akhilesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)              :    G.A., Satish Chandra Sinha

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 impugned charge-sheet dated 27.11.2024 and cognizance order
dated 24.01.2025 passed by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), S.S.T. No. 81
of 2025, (State Vs. Umesh Chauhan) arising out of Case Crime No. 244 of
2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) of B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(5ka),
3(1) Da & Dha of the S.C./S.T. Act. Police Station, Saidpur, District-
Ghazipur.

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 appellant is permitted to appear before the concerned
court within 20 days from today through counsel and move an application
seeking discharge, if such application is filed within said period, the
Magistrate concerned shall decide the discharge application as expeditiously
as possible, preferably within a period of three months thereafter.
                                                                                              CRLA No. 1592 of 2025
                                                                    2

                                    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.

                                    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 5, 2026
                                    Akbar
                                                                                           (Madan Pal Singh,J.)




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

Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.