Allahabad High Court

AAMIR ASRAR @ AKKU AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: SANTOSH RAI

Holding

The court held that a prima facie case was made out from the material on record, so the cognizance and summoning order was valid and the appeal must be dismissed.

Summary

The appellants challenged the cognizance and summoning order dated 27‑02‑2023 issued by the Special Judge under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, alleging that the FIR was lodged 42 days after the incident, the investigation was defective and the case stemmed from a civil land dispute. They contended that the delay, failure to examine a key witness and lack of material under the SC/ST Act rendered the order an abuse of process and warranted quashing. The State argued that the FIR named the appellants, the victim’s statement, medical report and other material established a prima facie case, and that any deficiencies were matters of defence. The Court held that at the stage of summoning the trial court need only ascertain whether a prima facie case exists, which it found to be clearly disclosed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as being devoid of merit.

Issues considered

Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and alleged investigative deficiencies justify quashing the cognizance and summoning order.
Whether the civil land dispute underlying the complaint negates the existence of a prima facie case under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Whether the trial court erred in taking cognizance and summoning the accused on the material placed before it.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 156(3)
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 504, 506
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va)

Subjects

assault
criminal intimidation
SC/ST atrocities
cognizance order
summoning order
procedural delay
civil dispute
prima facie

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9069 of 2023

Aamir Asrar @ Akku And Another
.....Appellant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Abdul Zarrar Khan, Aijaz Mustafa
Khan, Bharat Singh Pal, Deepak Singh
Patel, Mukesh Kumar Yadav,
Muzzamil Jahid Ansari, Pratima Pal
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Rajiv Kumar Mishra, Shashi
Kant

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

1. Learned counsel for the appellants states that he has filed rejoinder
affidavit to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of O.P. No.2 in the
registry but the same is not showing on the portal.

2. He submits that he has not intention to file rejoinder affidavit to the
counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State and is ready to argue the
case.

3. Heard Shri Bharat Singh Pal, Advocate and Ms. Pratima Pal, Advocate
appearing on behalf of the appellants, Shri Rajiv Kumar Mishra,
Advocate and Shri Shashi Kant, Advocate appearing on behalf of O.P.
No.2 and learned AGA for the State.

4. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants to set aside/quash
the cognizance/summoning order dated 27.02.2023 passed by Special
Judge, SC/ST Act, Kaushambi in Case No.60 of 2023 arising out of Case
Crime No.216 of 2022 under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Sections
3(2)(va) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S.- Pipari,
District- Kaushambi.

5. In the First Information Report, the accused-appellants, namely Aamir
Asrar alias Akku and Shadique Asrar alias Sajju, have been specifically
named. The allegation against the accused-appellants is that the victim,
CRLA No. 9069 of 2023
2

namely Deshraj, had filed a complaint regarding Gram Sabha land before
the competent authority, on account of which the accused-appellants were
annoyed with him. It is alleged that, due to such annoyance, the accused-
appellants caused injuries to the victim and also used caste-based slurs
against him on the ground that he belongs to the SC/ST category.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned
cognizance and summoning order dated 27.02.2023 is unsustainable as
the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of 42 days, the alleged
incident being dated 27.05.2022 and the FIR being lodged on 08.07.2022.
The investigation was defective, as the informant's statement was
recorded only on 28.07.2022 and the Investigating Officer did not
examine Chandar Pasi, in whose presence the alleged incident is stated to
have occurred. The medical report records only simple injuries. It is
further submitted that no material was collected to establish the offences
under the SC/ST Act and the charge-sheet was submitted mechanically.
The proceedings have arisen out of an existing civil/revenue dispute
concerning the land between the parties. The informant had also earlier
moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on similar allegations,
which was rejected on 13.10.2022. Accordingly, it is submitted that the
appellants have been falsely implicated to settle the civil dispute and that
the impugned order is an abuse of the process of law; hence, the
proceedings are liable to be quashed.

7. Per contra, learned AGA and leared counsel for opposite party no.2
submit that the appellants are named in the FIR and specific allegations
constituting the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and the SC/ST
Act have been levelled against them. The allegations are supported by the
statement of the informant, medical evidence and the material collected
during investigation. It is submitted that after investigation, the
Investigating Officer found sufficient material and submitted the charge-
sheet, on which the learned Special Judge rightly took cognizance and
summoned the appellants. The alleged delay, deficiencies in investigation
and the plea of false implication arising from a civil dispute are matters of
defence and cannot, at this stage, warrant quashing of the proceedings.

8. The injured victim, in his statement recorded before the Investigating
CRLA No. 9069 of 2023
3

Officer during the course of investigation, specifically stated that the
accused-appellants had used caste-based slur against him. Thus, the
allegation is that a caste-based derogatory word was deliberately used
against the victim with the intention of insulting and humiliating him on
the ground of his belonging to the SC/ST category. The injury report of
the injured victim is also available on record, wherein as many as six
injuries have been noted on his body. Injury Nos. 1 and 2 have been
described as contused swellings, whereas the remaining injuries have
been recorded as complaints of pain. The injury report, therefore, lends
corroboration to the statement of the injured victim recorded by the
Investigating Officer during the course of investigation and supports the
allegation that the victim had sustained injuries in the alleged incident.

9. At the stage of summoning, the court is only required to ascertain
whether a prima facie case is made out from the material available on
record. It is well settled that the court is not expected to undertake a
meticulous appreciation of the evidence or conduct a mini trial at this
stage. In view of the material available on record, a prima facie case is
clearly disclosed against the appellants. The appeal, being devoid of
merit, is liable to be dismissed.

10. For the reasons recorded above, this Court finds that the learned trial
court has rightly summoned the accused-appellants under Sections 323,
504 and 506 IPC and Sections 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act. The impugned order is well reasoned and does not
suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference in appellate
jurisdiction.

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

12. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate the instant order to
the court concerned through District and Sessions Judge, Kaushambi by
e-mail/FAX within three days.

(Santosh Rai,J.)
September 8, 2026
Ankit.

Digitally signed by :-
ANKIT VISHWAKARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…