Allahabad High Court
BHANU MAURYA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The accused’s defence cannot be considered at the discharge stage, and the trial court’s order rejecting the discharge application stands.
Summary
The appellants Bhanu Maurya and another were charged under sections 323, 504, 506, 452 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 based on an FIR filed by an informant who claimed to belong to a Scheduled Caste. They filed a discharge application arguing that the informant was not a member of a Scheduled Caste and that the trial court had erred by rejecting the application without examining this claim. The State contended that at the discharge stage the court must rely solely on material gathered during investigation and that the accused cannot raise a defence or submit documents. The High Court held that it is well‑settled law that the accused’s defence cannot be considered at the discharge or charge‑framing stage, and therefore the trial court’s order was correct. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The decision reaffirms the procedural rule that questions of the informant’s caste status are not to be adjudicated at the discharge stage.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the discharge application on the ground that the informant’s caste status was not examined.
- Whether an accused can raise a defence or submit documents at the stage of discharge or charge‑framing under the SC/ST Act.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 452, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(1), 3(1)(X)
Subjects
- SC/ST Act
- discharge application
- criminal procedure
- caste verification
- defence at charge framing
- appeal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1747 of 2026
Bhanu Maurya And Another
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Kamalesh Kumar Nishad, Ram Awadh
Maurya
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Sunil Kumar-I
Court No. - 51
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for appellants, learned counsel for
informant and Sri R.K. Singh, learned AGA for State.
2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989, has been filed by the appellants against the impugned
order dated 17.01.2026 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Basti in
Sessions Case No.19 of 20006 (State Vs. Bhanu Maurya and others)
arising out of case Crime No.05 of 2003, under sections 323, 504,
506, 452 IPC and Section 3(1) (X) SC/ST Act, Police station
Mehdawal District Sant Kabir Nagar.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that their
discharge application was wrongly rejected by the learned Trial
Court without considering the fact that the FIR against them was
lodged by the informant, who falsely claimed himself to be a
member of the SC/ST community. The Court has wrongly relied
upon the documents submitted by the informant/respondent. The
appellants will suffer unnecessary harassment by being made to face
trial for offences under the SC/ST Act. There is neither rhyme nor
reason to drag the appellants into trial at the instance of the
informant, who is not a member of the SC/ST community. Hence,
the impugned order rejecting the discharge application of the
appellants is liable to be set aside.
4. Learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for the
informant/respondent have submitted that the accused is not
permitted to submit his defence or documents at the stage of framing
of charge. At the stage when the Court is considering a discharge
CRLA No. 1747 of 2026
2
application, it is required to confine itself to the material and
evidence collected during the investigation. The Court cannot go
beyond the material collected during the investigation. If the
Investigating Officer has not found any such evidence during the
investigation to indicate that the informant does not belong to the
SC/ST community, then such an objection cannot be raised by the
accused at the stage of discharge. Hence, the impugned order passed
by the learned Trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned
order.
6. It is well-settled law that the defence of the accused cannot be
considered either at the stage of discharge or at the stage of framing
of charges. Therefore, the objections raised by the appellants in their
discharge application are untenable. Hence, the impugned order
passed by the learned Trial Court does not require any interference.
7. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
March 19, 2026
Mukesh
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MUKESH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…