PROMOD KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8581 of 2026

Promod Kumar
                                                           .....Appellant(s)
                                  Versus

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

Counsel for Appellant(s)              :    Uma Dutt Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s)             :    Ratnesh Pratap Singh, G.A.

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

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

2. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant with a
prayer to set aside the entire proceedings, charge-sheet dated 4.7.2025 as
well as the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 22.9.2025
passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Agra in Session Case No.2005 of
2025 (State vs. Awadhesh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.32 of
2024, under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 352, 351(2) B.N.S. and Sections
3(1)(r), 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S.- Jaitpur, District- Agra.

3. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that the FIR does
not disclose any specific casteist slur or derogatory caste-related words
allegedly used by the accused-appellant. It is further submitted that the
allegations are general and omnibus in nature, and no specific role has
been assigned to the individual accused. The prosecution has sought to
improve upon the allegations in the FIR through the subsequent
statements of the injured witnesses recorded during investigation. It is,
therefore, contended that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences
are not prima facie established against the accused-appellant and that the
impugned order suffers from illegality and infirmity and is liable to be set
aside.

4. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA
                                                           CRLA No. 8581 of 2026
                                 2


submits that the allegations made in the FIR are duly supported by the
statements of the injured witnesses recorded during the course of
investigation. It is submitted that the injured witnesses have consistently
stated that the accused-appellants not only caused injuries to them but
also used casteist slurs at a place within public view. The medical
evidence further corroborates the ocular version, as four persons sustained
a total of thirty-four injuries in the incident. It is, therefore, contended that
a clear prima facie case is made out against the accused-appellants and
that, at the stage of cognizance, the evidence is not required to be
meticulously scrutinized. The impugned order has been passed after
considering the material available on record and calls for no interference
by this Court.

5. In the FIR, accused-appellants Awadhesh, Raju, Hassan Lal, Saurav
(shopkeeper), Pramod (who was working at the marriage hall), along with
5-7 other persons, have been named. It has been alleged in the FIR that
the accused-appellants, in furtherance of their common object, caused
injuries to the victims and also used abusive language. Although no
specific casteist slur has been mentioned in the FIR, the statements of the
injured persons recorded during the course of investigation disclose that
the accused-appellants caused injuries to them and also used casteist slurs
at a place within public view.

6. Admittedly, four persons sustained injuries in the incident. Injured Ravi
sustained ten injuries, injured Ishu sustained eleven injuries, injured Ajay
sustained nine injuries, and injured Sushant sustained four injuries. Thus,
a total of thirty-four injuries are alleged to have been caused by the
accused-appellants in furtherance of their common object. The statements
of the injured persons are duly corroborated by the medical evidence
available on record. At the stage of taking cognizance, the trial court is
not required to meticulously examine or appreciate the evidence as if
conducting a trial. The only question to be considered at this stage is
whether the material available on record discloses a prima facie case
against the accused persons.

7. For the reasons recorded above, this Court finds that the learned trial
court has rightly summoned the accused-appellant under the aforesaid
                                                                                             CRLA No. 8581 of 2026
                                                                    3


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

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

                                    9. 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 23, 2026
                                    RA




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