Allahabad High Court
PRANSHU RAI @ PRIYANSHU RAI AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- MADAN PAL SINGH
Holding
The appeal to quash the summoning and cognizance order was dismissed as no abuse of process was established.
Summary
The appellants Pranshu Rai and two others appealed to the Allahabad High Court seeking to quash the summoning and cognizance order dated 14-10-2025 and the entire Sessions Trial proceedings arising under several provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. They contended that no offence was made out against them and that the prosecution was instituted with a mala fide motive to harass. The 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’s process. Accordingly, the appeal to quash the order was refused, but the Court permitted the appellants to appear before the trial court within 20 days and file an application for discharge. No coercive measures were to be taken against the appellants during this period, and the trial court was directed to consider the discharge application and either discharge the accused if the charge is groundless or proceed with the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the summoning/cognizance order dated 14-10-2025 can be quashed on the ground of abuse of process.
- Whether the prosecution is mala fide and therefore the proceedings should be dismissed.
- Whether the trial court has the power to discharge the accused before framing of charges.
Legislation cited
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 115(2), 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(va), 351(3), 352B
Subjects
- quash
- summoning order
- abuse of process
- discharge application
- SC/ST Act
- criminal procedure
- appeal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 860 of 2026
Pranshu Rai @ Priyanshu Rai And 2 Others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ali Hasan, Shionath Jaishal
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Navneet Kumar Mishra
Court No. - 51
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Heard Sri Ali Hasan, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Arvind
Kumar Rai, advocate holding brief of Sri Navneet Kumar Mishra,
learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.
2. The present appeal has been filed to quash , summoning/cognizance
order dated 14-10-2025, as well as the entire proceedings of
Sessions Trial No. 785 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 246
of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 352 BNS and Sections
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.
CRLA No. 860 of 2026
2
6. No coercive measures shall be adopted against the appellant for a
period 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
9. 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.
10. With the aforesaid observations, this appeal stands disposed of.
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
May 18, 2026
pks
Digitally signed by :-
PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…