Allahabad High Court
RAJKUMAR PALversusSTATE OF UP AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- MADAN PAL SINGH
Holding
The appeal is dismissed; the court refuses to quash the criminal proceedings.
Summary
The appellant Rajkumar Pal filed an appeal under Section 14A‑1 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 seeking to quash the Special Sessions Trial No. 23 of 2026 (State v. Rajkumar Pal) that was instituted under Sections 76, 115(2), 352, 351(2) of the B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. The appellant alleged that no offence was made out against him and that the prosecution was maliciously instituted to harass him. The High Court held that none of the Supreme Court‑recognised grounds for quashing a criminal complaint were satisfied and that there was no abuse of the court’s process. Consequently, the prayer to quash the proceedings was refused, but the court permitted the appellant to appear before the trial court within 20 days and move an application for discharge, with a stay on coercive measures during that period. The Court directed the trial court to decide, after hearing counsel, whether the summons were proper or the charges groundless, and then to proceed accordingly. The appeal was therefore disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the appeal under Section 14A‑1 of the SC/ST Act can be allowed to quash the criminal proceedings.
- Whether the prosecution was instituted with mala fide intent constituting an abuse of process.
- Whether any of the Supreme Court‑recognised grounds for quashing a complaint are applicable.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 115(2), 351(2), 352, 76
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14A-1
Subjects
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
- Section 14A-1
- quash of criminal proceedings
- abuse of process
- discharge application
- special sessions trial
- appeal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3511 of 2026
Rajkumar Pal
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Gajendra Singh Chauhan
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ajay Sengar, 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 entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 23 of 2026 (State
Vs. Rajkumar Pal) arising out of Case Crime No. 260 of 2025, under
Sections- 76, 115(2), 352, 351(2) of B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(va) of the
S.C./S.T. Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant 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.
7. If the concerned court, after hearing the counsel for the accused, is
CRLA No. 3511 of 2026
2
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
Checking your session…