Allahabad High Court

BAGEDU ALIAS RAMANSH RAJ SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: MADAN PAL SINGH

Holding

The appeal was dismissed as no ground for quashing the cognizance order or abuse of process was established.

Summary

The appellant, Bagedu alias Ramansh Raj Singh, filed a criminal appeal under Section 14A‑1 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 seeking to quash a cognizance order dated 14 July 2025 issued by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Chandauli. The appellant alleged that no offence was made out against him and that the prosecution was instituted with a mala fide intention to harass. The High Court held that none of the Supreme Court‑recognised grounds for quashing a complaint or proceeding were satisfied and that there was no abuse of the court process. Consequently, the court refused the prayer to quash the cognizance order but permitted the appellant to appear before the trial court within 20 days to move an application for discharge. The court further directed that if the trial court finds the charge groundless it may discharge the accused, otherwise it may proceed with the case and take necessary measures to secure the accused’s presence. The appeal was therefore disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the cognizance order under the SC/ST Act can be quashed on the ground of mala fide prosecution.
Whether the appellant is entitled to relief on the basis of alleged abuse of process.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 115(2), 333, 351(3), 352, 76
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(va)

Subjects

SC/ST Act
quash of cognizance
abuse of process
discharge application
scheduled caste
scheduled tribe
criminal appeal

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8062 of 2025

Bagedu Alias Ramansh Raj Singh
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Dinesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, G.A.

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

1. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri
Grijesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and
learned AGA for the State 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 cognizance order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the Special Judge
SC/ST Act, Chandauli in Special Session No. 781 of 2025 (State Vs. Begedu
@ Ramanshraj Singh & Ors.) arising out of Case Crime No. 52 of 2025,
under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 333, 352 & 76 of B.N.S. and Section
3(1)(da), 3(1) (dha) and 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 appellant 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 appellant is 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 appellant for a period
CRLA No. 8062 of 2025
2

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
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 6, 2026
Akbar
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
MOHAMMAD AKBAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…