SHILPA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6906 of 2026

Shilpa And Another
                                                              .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                            .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)        : Lokesh Kumar Dwivedi, Piyush Mishra,
                                  Rajneesh Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : G.A.

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

1. Compliance affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.

2. As per office report, notice has been served upon opposite party no.2 but
no one has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants party no.2 and learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the record.

4. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14A(1) of S.C. & S.T.
Act by the appellants challenging the impugned summoning order dated
25.03.2026, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special
Judge, Sant Kabir Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 156 of 2026, State Vs. Shilpa
and another, arising out of Case Crime No. 55 of 2026, under Sections
115(2), 352 and 351(3) BNS and Section 3(1)(d), 3(2)(VA) of the SC/ST
Act, P.S. Bakhira, District Sant Kabir Nagar.

5. Tersely, as per the FIR version, the informant alleged that on 09.02.2026
at about 6:00 p.m., accused Shilpa, Shubham and Shivangi, acting together,
assaulted his daughter Roshni with lathi and danda. When the informant
intervened to rescue his daughter, the accused allegedly abused him by using
a caste-indicative slur, assaulted him and his daughter, causing injuries, and
also extended threats to kill them.

6. Briefly, the grounds of the appeal are that the impugned summoning order
dated 25.03.2026, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special
Judge, Sant Kabir Nagar is wholly illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of
law. The impugned order is based on surmises and conjunctures as such
                                                            CRLA No. 6906 of 2026
                                  2


same is liable to be quashed.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been
falsely implicated in the present case and that the genesis of the occurrence
was a trivial dispute relating to the plucking of peas from the field. It is
contended that the injuries allegedly sustained by the informant and his
daughter Roshni are simple in nature and do not disclose any serious assault
attributable to the appellants. Learned counsel further submits that the
allegations contained in the FIR and the statements of the injured witnesses
are exaggerated and have been made with a view to falsely implicate the
appellants in the dispute. It is, therefore, submitted that the material available
on record does not justify taking cognizance against the appellants and that
the proceedings deserve to be interfered with.

8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State submits that the
appellants are specifically named in the FIR and that specific allegations of
assault have been levelled against them. It is submitted that the informant
and his daughter Roshni, both injured witnesses, have reiterated the
allegations in their statements recorded under Section 180 BNSS and have
attributed specific acts of assault and use of casteist slurs to the appellants at
a place within public view. Learned A.G.A. further submits that the medical
report prima facie corroborates the ocular version, as Bechan sustained three
stitched wounds on the left side of his forehead besides other injuries, while
Roshni also sustained two injuries.

The informant Bechan has sustained following injuries:-

     1. Lacerated wound measuring about 1.5 cm × 0.5 cm on the left
     side of the forehead, about 4 cm above the left eyebrow, with
     bleeding on touch.
     2. Abraded contused swelling measuring about 4 cm × 3 cm on
     the left side of the head, about 1 cm above the left ear; red in
     colour. Referred to District Hospital for further examination and
     treatment.
     3. Lacerated wound measuring about 5 cm × 0.3 cm with
     contused swelling on the forehead, about 2 cm above the root of
     the nose, red in colour.
     4. Abrasion measuring about 15 cm × 0.5 cm on the nose, about
     0.5 cm below the root of the nose, red in colour.
                                                          CRLA No. 6906 of 2026
                                 3


     5. Abraded contused swelling measuring about 4 cm × 3 cm on
     the posterior aspect of the head, about 8 cm away from the left
     ear.
     Opinion: All injuries were caused by a hard and blunt object.
     Injury No. 2 was referred for further opinion; the remaining
     injuries were opined to be simple in nature and fresh.

It is argued by learned A.G.A. that the nature of the injuries or the alleged
triviality of the dispute cannot be a ground for discarding the prosecution
case at the stage of cognizance. Whether the allegations are ultimately
established by reliable and admissible evidence is a matter for consideration
during trial. Accordingly, learned A.G.A. submits that the challenge raised
by the appellants is premature and that no interference is warranted at this
stage.

9. Accused-appellants Shilpa and Shubham are named in the First
Information Report along with co-accused Shivangi. The FIR specifically
alleges that all the accused persons, including the appellants, assaulted the
complainant/informant and his daughter Roshni with lathi and danda,
causing injuries to them. The genesis of the altercation is stated to be the
plucking of peas from the field. The informant and his daughter namely
Bechan and Roshni in their statements recorded under Section 180 BNSS
have made specific and distinct allegations against the appellants regarding
the assault and use of casteist slurs at a place within public view. The alleged
occurrence took place in the pea field. Learned counsel for the appellants
submits that the injuries sustained are simple in nature and that the dispute
arose out of a trivial incident. However, at the stage of registration of an FIR
and taking cognizance, the gravity of the injuries or the alleged triviality of
the cause of the occurrence is not determinative, provided the information
discloses commission of a cognizable offence. Perusal of the medical report
shows that Bechan sustained three stitched wounds over left side of
forehead, besides five other injuries in the form of contusions and an
abraded contusion. Two injuries were also sustained by Roshni. The medical
evidence, prima facie, corroborates the statements of the injured witnesses
and the allegations contained in the FIR. Whether the allegations are
ultimately proved is a matter to be determined at the appropriate stage of
trial. At the stage of taking cognizance, a meticulous appreciation of
evidence is neither warranted nor permissible.
                                                                                            CRLA No. 6906 of 2026
                                                                    4


                                    10. Considering the specific allegations made by the injured witnesses,
                                    coupled with the medical evidence, the learned trial court has rightly taken
                                    cognizance and summoned the appellants. Accordingly, no interference is
                                    called for.

                                    11. The criminal appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

                                    September 29, 2026
                                    Asha
                                                                                               (Santosh Rai,J.)




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