VEDRAM AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

              HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                    CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 271 of 2025

Vedram And 2 Others
                                                                 .....Appellant(s)
                                     Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                               .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)                            :    Rahul Shekhar
Counsel for Respondent(s)                           :    G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and thelearned A.G.A. for the
State. Despite the fact that notice has been served upon opposite party no.2
as per office report dated 21st April, 2026, no one has appeared on behalf of
opposite party no.2 even in the revised reading of the list.

2. The present appeal has been filed with a prayer to quash the summoning
order dated 4th October, 2023 as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint
Case No. 02 of 2022 (Kumari Sarina Vs. Vedram & Others), under SEctions
452, 354, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3 (1) (da) and 3 (1) (dha) of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989,
Police Station-Karhal District-Mainpuri.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellants
are innocent, as the present complaint case is false and fabricated with
ulterior motive. The present complaint case filed by opposite party no.2 is
nothing but a bundle of lie and the same has been filed only for exploiting the
appellants by indulging their names in a fake, false and frivolous case. The
entire prosecution story as unfolded in the complaint case is absolutely a self-
made story projected by opposite party no.2 in order to harass the appellants.
It is further submitted that initially for the incident dated 6th October, 2021 at
05:00 p.m. the appellant no.2 lodged a first information report against the
brothers of opposite party no.2, namely, Ramlakhan and Umesh and in the
said incident, the hand of the appellant no.2 has been fractured. The present
complaint case has been engineered against the appellants as counter blast
to the criminal proceedings initiated by appellant no.2. It is lastly submitted
that the injuries sustained by the brothers of opposite party no.2 are simple in
nature.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the appellants. He submits that it is a cross case filed by both the parties
                                                            CRLA No. 271 of 2025
                                 2

against each other in which persons of both sides sustained injuries and at
this stage only prima facie case has to be seen.

5. Since the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant involves
factual disputes and appraisal of evidence, the same can only be decided after
conclusion of the trial by examining oral as well as documentary evidence
adduced during the course of trial.

6. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions
made by the learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. and
perused the material available on record including the impugned order.

7. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the
case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the
appellant at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the
disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in
the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs.
State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal,
1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192,
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another
(Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and lastly, State of U.P. Vs. Akhil Sharda &
Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 820.

8. In the opinion of the Court if the Magistrate finds that the criminal case or
complaint is supported with material evidence and there appears prima facie
case to have been made out that will be the sufficient ground for summoning
as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Chandra Dev Singh Vs.
Prakash Chandra Bose reported in ACR 1964 (1) 639 and Smt. Nagbba Vs.
Viranna Shivlingappa Konjalgi & Others reported in 1976 (13) ACC 22
(SC).

9. In the present case, it is admitted that it is a case of cross case and each
parties have initiated cases against each other for the alleged incident in
which persons of both sides have sustained injuries. This Court is of the
present opinion that in the present case, the Magistrate on the basis of
documentary evidence like injury reports of the brothers of the opposite party
no.2 available on record along with the statements of witnesses recorded
under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and the version as unfolded in the
complaint, has found sufficient grounds and reasons to summon the
appellants-accused and accordingly, the trial court has summoned them to
face trial. The trial court has not found any material contradictions between the
contents of the complaint and the statements of witnesses which supported
                                                                                                   CRLA No. 271 of 2025
                                                                      3

                                    by injury report.

                                    10. After deeper scrutiny, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is
                                    based on well detailed discussion of the documentary material and evidence
                                    on record. As such, this Court finds that the Magistrate has rightly summoned
                                    the accused-appellants for facing trial and there is no illegality or impropriety in
                                    the impugned order. The delay in lodging of the first information report has
                                    also been explained by learned counsel for opposite party no.2 referred to
                                    above. As such, the impugned order is correct and the same is liable to be
                                    confirmed.

                                    11. The prayer for quashing the aforesaid summoning order as well as entire
                                    proceeding of the aforesaid case is refused.

                                    12. The present criminal appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
                                    May 5, 2026
                                    Sushil/-
                                                                                                (Madan Pal Singh,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad