DEEPAK KUMAR AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3750 of 2026

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

Counsel for Appellant(s)        : Vijay Pal
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : Bipin Kumar, G.A., Pavanesh Kumar
                                  Yadav

Court No. - 93
                      HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

1. Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the appellants is taken on
record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for opposite
party no.2 and learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14A(1) of S.C. & S.T.
Act by the appellants to quash the impugned cognizance order dated
25.03.2026, passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Bulandshahr,
as well as the impugned charge-sheet dated 07.03.2026 in Session Case No.
1254 of 2026 (State Vs. Deepak and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.
03 of 2026, under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 352 and 118(1) B.N.S. and
Sections 3(1)(da) and 3(1)(dha) of the S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Police Station
Agota, District Bulandshahr.

4. Tersely, as per the FIR version, the accused-appellants allegedly assaulted
the victim and other women while they were preparing cow-dung cakes
(uple) on Gram Samaj land and caused injuries to them. They have also used
caste related derogatory wards.

5. Briefly, the grounds of the appeal are that the impugned cognizance order
dated 25.03.2026, passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act,
Bulandshahr is wholly illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The
impugned order is based on surmises and conjunctures as such same is liable
to be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned
                                                          CRLA No. 3750 of 2026
                                2


cognizance order and charge-sheet are unsustainable in law. It was
contended that no independent witness has been examined in support of the
prosecution case and the allegations are supported only by interested
witnesses. The FIR was lodged after unexplained delay, which casts doubt
upon the prosecution version. The medical examination was conducted about
two hours after the alleged incident, and the injury reports appear to have
been manipulated. The Investigating Officer failed to properly scrutinize the
statements of the victim and witnesses and, without proper consideration of
the material, wrongly submitted the charge-sheet against the appellants. The
appellants neither used any caste-related filthy words against the informant
nor caused the alleged injuries; hence, the ingredients of the offences under
the SC/ST Act are not established. Accordingly, the impugned cognizance
order dated 25.03.2026 and charge-sheet dated 07.03.2026 are liable to be
quashed.


7. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A.
for the State submitted that the prosecution case is supported by the
statements of the informant, injured witness and other witnesses, which
corroborate the allegations made in the FIR. The witnesses have specifically
stated that the appellants used casteist slurs against the victim and assaulted
her and Pooja, causing injuries. It was further submitted that the injury
reports of Kasturi Devi and Pooja are available on record and support the
allegation of assault. During investigation, the Investigating Officer
examined the concerned doctor who had prepared the injury reports. Thus,
the plea that the medical evidence was manipulated is a matter of defence
and cannot be adjudicated at the stage of cognizance. It was argued that the
appellants were aware of the caste identity of the victims and that the
allegations, ocular evidence and medical evidence disclose a prima facie
case against them. The learned Special Judge has, therefore, rightly taken
cognizance and summoned the appellants. At the stage of cognizance, the
Court is only required to examine whether a prima facie case is made out
and is not required to undertake a detailed appreciation of the evidence.

8. In the first information report allegation is that the accused appellants
have caused injury when the informant and other females were preparing
animal-dung cakes (uple) on Gram Samaj land. From perusal of the
statements of the injured persons and other witnesses, it appears that they
have corroborated the allegations contained in the FIR. Accused-appellants
                                                                                            CRLA No. 3750 of 2026
                                                                    3


                                    used casteist slurs against the victim, despite being aware of her caste
                                    identity. The injury reports of Pooja and Kasturi Devi are on record, wherein
                                    incised wounds have been noted. Although learned counsel for the
                                    appellants contended that the medical reports were doubtful and had been
                                    fraudulently prepared but the Investigating Officer examined the concerned
                                    doctor who prepared the reports and considered the medical evidence during
                                    investigation.


                                    9. In view of the statements of the injured witnesses, corroborative ocular
                                    evidence and medical evidence available on record, a prima facie case is
                                    made out against the appellants. Accordingly, the trial court rightly took
                                    cognizance and summoned them. At the stage of taking cognizance, the
                                    Court is required only to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists for
                                    initiating proceedings, and a detailed appreciation of evidence is not
                                    warranted at this stage.

                                    10. Hence, this criminal appeal is rejected.

                                    September 8, 2026
                                    Asha
                                                                                               (Santosh Rai,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
ASHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad