Allahabad High Court

DEEPAK KUMAR SAHU AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 17 May 2026
Bench: MADAN PAL SINGH

Holding

The summoning order is not quashable as no ground for abuse of process or lack of prima facie case is established, though the accused may seek discharge before framing of charges.

Summary

The appellants filed a criminal appeal seeking to quash a summoning order dated 14 January 2026 issued by the Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in a case arising from alleged offences under several IPC and SC/ST Act provisions. The appellants contended that no offence was made out against them and that the prosecution was instituted with mala fide intent to harass. The High Court held that none of the Supreme Court‑recognised grounds for quashing the complaint or proceedings were made out and that there was no abuse of the court’s process. Accordingly, the court refused to quash the summoning order, but permitted the appellants 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 further directed that if the trial court finds the charge groundless it may discharge the accused, otherwise it should proceed with the case. The appeal was therefore disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the summoning order under the SC/ST Act can be quashed on the ground of lack of prima facie case or abuse of process.
Whether the prosecution was instituted with mala fide intent warranting quashing of the proceedings.
Whether the trial court has the power to discharge the accused before framing of charges if the charge is found groundless.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 115(2), 117(2), 191(2), 351(3), 352
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(va)

Subjects

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act
quash of summoning order
abuse of process
criminal procedure
discharge of accused
preliminary hearing

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3564 of 2026

Deepak Kumar Sahu And 4 Others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Anand Prakash Pandey, Asharfi Lal
Gupta, Rajiv Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. for the
State as well as perused the record. Despite the fact that notice has been
served upon opposite party no.2 personally as per office report dated 15th
May, 2026, no one appears for the opposite arty no.2 even in the revised
reading of the list.

2. The present appeal has been filed to quash the summoning order dated
14th January, 2026 passed by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Prayagraj in
Sessions Trial No. 70 of 2026 (State Vs. Deepak Kumar Sahu & Others),
arising out of Case Crime No. 206 of 20225, under Sections 191 (2), 115 (2),
352, 351 (3), 117 (2) B.NS., and Sections 3 (1) (da), (3)1) (dha) and 3 (2)Va of
the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Baharia, District-Prayagraj.

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
CRLA No. 3564 of 2026
2

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 18, 2026
Sushil/-
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…