DHIRENDRA YADAV @ DHEERU AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                   CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6451 of 2026

Dhirendra Yadav @ Dheeru And 2 Others
                                                            .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                          .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)             :   Ravindra Prakash Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)            :   G.A., Surendra Mohan Mishra

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants/applicants, learned counsel for
opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State.

2. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants with a
prayer to set aside the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated
16.3.2026 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST (PA)
Act, Siddharth Nagar in Case Crime No.154 of 2025 (State vs. Dhirendra
Yadav @ Dheeru and others), under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) B.N.S.
and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S.- Mohana,
District- Siddharth Nagar.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the summoning order
has been passed mechanically without proper appreciation of the material
available on record. It is contended that the alleged incident arose out of a
dispute relating to harvesting and threshing of the paddy crop, and a
cross-case bearing Case Crime No.164 of 2025 has also been registered
with respect to the same occurrence, wherein both sides sustained injuries.
It is further submitted that the appellants have been falsely implicated due
to the existing dispute, no offence under the provisions of the SC/ST Act
is made out, and, therefore, the impugned summoning order is liable to be
set aside.

4. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2, as well as learned AGA,
opposed the appeal and submitsthat the FIR specifically names the
                                                        CRLA No. 6451 of 2026
                               2


accused appellants and contains clear and specific allegations regarding
their involvement in the incident. It is further submitted that the
statements of the informant and the injured witnesses are consistent with
the allegations made in the FIR, and the medical evidence also
corroborates the injuries sustained by the injured persons. They further
submit that the existence of a cross-case arising out of the same incident
does not, by itself, discredit the prosecution version, particularly when
both sides sustained injuries. It is also submitted that the material
available on record prima facie discloses the commission of the alleged
offences, including the allegation of use of caste-related abusive words
within public view. Accordingly, the trial court has rightly taken
cognizance and summoned the accused appellants, and no interference
with the impugned order is warranted.

5. In the FIR, three accused persons, namely Dhiru Yadav, Manoj Yadav
and Viru Yadav, are named. It is alleged that the accused appellants
caused injuries to the injured persons when the informant reached the
field of Budhram. According to the FIR, there was an understanding
between the parties that, after harvesting the paddy crop and during the
process of threshing, the husk would be taken by the informant while the
rice would be given to the owner of the disputed land. It is alleged that the
accused appellants opposed the said arrangement and thereafter assaulted
the informant and the injured persons. The medical reports disclose
injuries sustained by Tulsiram, Vishal Kannaujia and Prince Kannaujia.
The statement of the informant specifically attributes the role of the
accused appellants in causing injuries with hard and blunt objects, and the
medical evidence corroborates the allegations made in the FIR and the
statements of the injured witnesses. A cross-case arising out of the same
incident, being Case Crime No.164 of 2025 dated 9.11.2025, was also
registered and that both sides sustained injuries. The existence of the
cross-case is, therefore, an admitted fact. The material collected during
investigation, including the allegation that accused Dhiru Yadav used
caste-related abusive words within public view, prima facie supports the
prosecution case.

6. For the reasons recorded above, this Court finds that the learned trial
court has rightly summoned the accused-appellants under the aforesaid
                                                                                             CRLA No. 6451 of 2026
                                                                    3


                                    provisions. The impugned order is well reasoned and does not suffer from
                                    any illegality or infirmity warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction.

                                    7. The instant appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.

                                    8. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to serve a copy of this order by
                                    FAX/e-mail to the court concerned through District & Sessions Judge
                                    concerned within 48 hours.



                                                                                                (Santosh Rai,J.)
                                    September 18, 2026
                                    RA




Digitally signed by :-
RAZIQ ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad