# Kaushal v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 888
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-01
- **Case number:** J. Criminal Appeal No. 10426 of 2024
- **Bench:** Nalin Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kaushal-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53270
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Law
-
Cognizance
and
Summoning - The Schedule Castes and
The
Schedule
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(da),
3(1)(dha) & 3(2)(5 ka) - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 342, 504, 506 & 323
- Stage of Cognizance - Prima facie case
and
strong
suspicion
sufficient
for
summoning - Magistrate not required to
assess
sufficiency
of
evidence
for
conviction
at
cognizance
stage
-
"Sufficient ground" means satisfaction of
prima facie case, not proof of guilt -
Taking cognizance lies exclusively with
the Magistrate, who must assess sufficient
ground
to
proceed,
not
to
convict;
adequacy of evidence for conviction is for
trial - no detailed reasons are required at
the stage of issuing process. (Para -
8,9,11,14,15)
Altercation took place between appellant and
informant at a coaching centre - appellant along
with associates allegedly hurled caste-related
abuses - assaulted and robbed informant in
public view - initial challan under Section 151
CrPC despite CCTV footage - later, FIR
registered and charge sheet filed under IPC and
SC/ST Act - cognizance taken and summons
issued. (Para -1,3,13 )

HELD: - Material on record showed a prima
facie case against the appellant to proceed to
trial.
Magistrate
was
justified
in
taking
cognizance and issuing summons. No illegality,
infirmity or perversity in the impugned order.
Appeal devoid of merit. (Para -13,17)

Criminal appeal dismissed. (E-7)

LIST OF CASES CITED: -

## Text

888 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to this court within a further period of one
month.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 888
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA,
J.

Criminal Appeal No. 10426 of 2024

Kaushal ... Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Jai Shanker Malviya

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

(A)
Criminal
Law
-
Cognizance
and
Summoning - The Schedule Castes and
The
Schedule
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(da),
3(1)(dha) & 3(2)(5 ka) - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 342, 504, 506 & 323
- Stage of Cognizance - Prima facie case
and
strong
suspicion
sufficient
for
summoning - Magistrate not required to
assess
sufficiency
of
evidence
for
conviction
at
cognizance
stage
-
"Sufficient ground" means satisfaction of
prima facie case, not proof of guilt -
Taking cognizance lies exclusively with
the Magistrate, who must assess sufficient
ground
to
proceed,
not
to
convict;
adequacy of evidence for conviction is for
trial - no detailed reasons are required at
the stage of issuing process. (Para -
8,9,11,14,15)
Altercation took place between appellant and
informant at a coaching centre - appellant along
with associates allegedly hurled caste-related
abuses - assaulted and robbed informant in
public view - initial challan under Section 151
CrPC despite CCTV footage - later, FIR
registered and charge sheet filed under IPC and
SC/ST Act - cognizance taken and summons
issued. (Para -1,3,13 )

HELD: - Material on record showed a prima
facie case against the appellant to proceed to
trial.
Magistrate
was
justified
in
taking
cognizance and issuing summons. No illegality,
infirmity or perversity in the impugned order.
Appeal devoid of merit. (Para -13,17)

Criminal appeal dismissed. (E-7)

LIST OF CASES CITED: -
1. R.P. Kapur Vs St. of Punj., A.I.R. 1960 S.C.
866,

2. St. of Har. Vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.)
426,

3. St. of Bihar Vs P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.)
192

4. Z.P.W. Ltd. Vs Mohd. Saraful Haq & anr.,
2005 SCC (Cr.) 283)

5. Nirmaljit Singh Vs St. of W.B., (1973) 3
SCC 753

6. St. of Guj. Vs Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta,
(2019) 20 SCC 539

7. Sarah Mathew Vs I.C.V.D., (2014) 2 SCC 62

8. Jagdish Ram Vs St. of Raj. & anr., AIR
2004 SC 1734

9. Ramesh Chandra Vaishya Vs St. of U.P. &
anr., (2023) 17 SCC 615

(Delivered by Hon'ble Nalin Kumar
Srivastava, J.)

1. This criminal appeal under
Section 14-A (1) Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act (in short 'the SC/ST Act')
has been preferred by the appellant -
Kaushal with the prayer to set-aside the
cognizance / summoning order dated
2.12.2023 passed by the Special Judge
4 All. Kaushal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
889
(SC/ST Act) Moradabad, the charge sheet
and the entire proceedings of Special
Session Trial No. 1771 of 2023, arising out
of case crime no. 482 of 2023, under
Sections 342, 504, 506, 323 IPC and
3(1)(da), 3(1) (dha), 3(2)(5 ka) the SC/ST
Act, P.S. Civil Lines, District Moradabad.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
appellant as well as the learned A.G.A. for
the State and perused the entire record.

3. Prosecution case, as culled out
from the record, is that an altercation took
place between the named accused persons
including the present appellant and the
informant side at a coaching centre. It is
alleged that after closing of the coaching
when the informant was returning to his
home in day time, the present appellant
alongwith his associates hurled abuses with
caste related remarks and threatened him
for dire consequences and he was also
beaten with kicking and fisting and his
money was also robbed by the accused
persons. Some independent persons of the
same vicinity reached there and the accused
persons fled away, however, police did not
take proper action and the present appellant
was simply challaned under Section 151
CrPC whereas the incident was captured in
the CCTV footage. However, subsequently
F.I.R. was lodged and after investigation
charge sheet under Sections 342, 504, 506,
323 IPC and 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(5 ka)
of SC/ST Act was filed and cognizance was
taken by the Court of the said offences and
the accused persons were summoned to
face trial accordingly.

4. It is submitted by the learned
counsel for the appellant that appellant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in
this case. Admittedly, a fracas took place
between two groups of students but it is
totally false to say that on account of said
heated argument any assault was made by
the appellant alongwith his associates upon
the informant. The eye witnesses have not
supported the prosecution case. No serious
injuries have been caused to the informant /
injured of this case. In the x-ray performed
by the doctor no adversity has been
discovered. Appellant has no criminal
history to his credit. It is further submitted
that offence under SC/ST Act is also not
made out against the present appellant.

5. The next argument advanced by the
learned counsel for the appellant is that the
I.O. of this case collected absolutely no
evidence to the effect that the incident took
place in any place within the public view
and intentional insult or intimidation was
made by the appellant. It is further
submitted that there is not even an iota of
evidence on record as collected by the I.O.
that the appellant committed the alleged
offence for the simple reason of the injured
being a member of SC/ST community. It is
also submitted that the appellant never
hurled abuses to insult him by caste related
remarks nor threatened for life and no
independent witness came forward to
support the prosecution version in this
respect. The impugned order suffers from
infirmity
and
illegality
warranting
interference by this Court.

6. Per contra, the learned AGA
opposed the appeal and submitted that
since the appellant and the injured were
studying in the same coaching centre, the
appellant was very well knowing that the
injured belonged to SC/ST community. As
per the prosecution case the incident
happened on a public road and several
persons were present over there and
witnesses Shanu and Kamal Hasan saw the
incident. Hence, the offence was committed
890 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
at a place which was within public view. It
is also submitted that since the charge sheet
has been submitted under Section 323 IPC,
no adverse inference may be drawn against
the prosecution case, if no fracture was
found in the x-ray report of the injured and
no serious injury was caused to him. The
Court concerned after applying its judicial
mind has passed the cognizance and
summoning order on the basis of sufficient
evidence on record. The trial court was
under no obligation to enter into the
elaborate discussion of the evidence at the
stage of taking cognizance of the offence.
Hence, the appeal having no force is liable
to be dismissed.

7. I have considered the rival
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties and have gone through the
entire record including the impugned order.

8. It is trite law that at the stage of
taking cognizance and summoning the
accused, the Magistrate / Court dealing
with the matter is required to apply judicial
mind only with a view to take cognizance
of the offence to find-out as to whether
prima-facie case has been made out to
summon the accused or not. The Court at
this stage is not required to analyze the
material on record to find-out as to whether
the matter may lead to conviction or not.
Sufficiency of materials for the purpose of
conviction is not required. It is also settled
that even when there are materials raising
strong suspicion against the accused, the
Court will be justified in taking cognizance
and summoning the accused. The Court /
Magistrate is not required to analyze the
evidence on merits but to scrutinize the
evidence only with a view as to whether
sufficient grounds exist to initiate criminal
proceedings in respect of the offence which
is said to have been committed (Vide : R.P.
Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960
S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan
Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar
Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs.
Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, 2005
SCC (Cr.) 283).

9. Further, what is 'sufficient ground'
for proceeding to issue summons and
warrant has been clarified in Nirmaljit
Singh Vs. State of West Bengal, (1973) 3
SCC 753 and it is held therein that the
words "sufficient ground" used in Section
203 have been construed to mean the
satisfaction that a prima facie case is made
out against the person accused by the
evidence of witnesses entitled to a
reasonable degree of credit and not
sufficient ground for the purpose of
conviction.

10. It is also not out of the scope of
subject here that an order passed to
summon the accused is an opinion of the
Magistrate and to pass a detailed order or to
state the grounds of his satisfaction is not
required from a Magistrate, however the
summoning order must be a speaking order.

11. In State of Gujarat v. Afroz
Mohammed Hasanfatta, (2019) 20 SCC
539, the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that
for issuance of summons strict standard of
proof of satisfaction of the Magistrate
regarding sufficiency of ground(s) to
proceed in the matter is not required and
such satisfaction should be based only on
prima facie evidence. Before summoning
the accused, the facts stated will have to be
accepted as they appear on the very face of
it. Sufficiency of evidence to hold accused
guilty, merits of matter and defence pleas
have to be examined at the stage of trial
and not at the stage of issuance of process.
4 All. Kaushal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
891
Whether statement of a witness is hearsay
and
whether
it
is
supported
by
"contemporaneous exposition" and whether
it would fall under "res gestae" and whether
it is admissible or not is to be seen only at
the time of trial.

12. To find out the requisite
ingredients to establish an offnce under
Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) [also to be read as
Section 3(1)(da) and Section 3(1)(dha)] and
3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, the provisions
thereof, are reproduced below :

"3. Punishments for offences of
atrocities.- (1) Whoever, not being a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe,-

(r)
intentionally
insults
or
intimidates with intent to humiliate a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe in any place within public
view;

(s) abuses any member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by
caste name in any place within public view.

(2) Whoever, not being a member
of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe,-

(v) commits any offence under the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) punishable
with imprisonment for a term of ten years
or more against a person or property
knowing that such person is a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or
such property belongs to such member,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for
life and with fine."

13. In the instant matter, the materials
available on record are capable to show that
the injured and the accused appellant were
studying in the same coaching centre,
hence, it was rightly supposed by the
Investigating Officer that the appellant very
well knew that the injured belonged to
SC/ST
community.
Furthermore,
the
offence took place at a public road in day
time in the presence of several persons and
the informant was wrongfully confined by
the accused persons on road. There is also
prima facie evidence on record that the
injured was beaten by the appellant who
also hurled abuses to him and threatened
for life. Though the named eye witnesses
Shanu and Kamal Hasan in their statements
given to the I.O. have made some
statements adverse to the prosecution case
but the injured / informant very well
supported the prosecution case when
interrogated by the Investigating Officer.
The injury report of the injured is also
available on record. Hence, in this matter,
as per the materials available on record, at
this stage, it cannot be said that offences
levelled against the appellant are not
attracted. A prima facie case is made out
against the appellant to proceed for trial.
Further, to decide the pleas raised before
this Court leading of evidence would be
required, which can appropriately be done
before the court concerned at appropriate
Stage.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Sarah Mathew vs. Institute of Cardio
Vascular Diseases, (2014) 2 SCC 62 held
that cognizance is taken when a Magistrate
or Court applies his mind or takes judicial
notice of an offence with a view to
initiating criminal proceedings in respect of
the offence which is said to have been
committed. This is the special connotation
acquired by the term "cognizance", and is
given the same meaning wherever it
appears in Chapter XXXVI as well.

15. Moreover, the view vented in
Jagdish Ram vs. State of Rajasthan and
another, AIR 2004 SC 1734 by the
892 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Hon'ble Apex Court sets a reminder that
taking cognizance of the offence is an area
exclusively within the domain of a
Magistrate. At this stage, the Magistrate has
to be satisfied whether there is sufficient
ground for proceeding and not whether
there is sufficient ground for conviction.
Whether the evidence is adequate for
supporting the conviction, can be determined
only at the trial and not at the stage of inquiry.
At the stage of issuing the process to the
accused, the Magistrate is not required to
record reasons.

16. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Ramesh Chandra Vaishya vs.
State of U.P. and another, (2023) 17 SCC
615 has been pleased to observe that the first
question that calls for an answer is whether it
was at a place within public view that the
appellant hurled caste related abuses at the
complainant with an intent to insult or
intimidate with an intent to humiliate him.

17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I
am of the opinion that there is no force in the
submissions made by the learned counsel for
the appellant. The Court concerned did not err
in taking cognizance into the matter and
thereby to summon the accused / appellant to
face trial for the offences made out prima
facie. There is no illegality, infirmity or
perversity in the impugned order. The prayer
made in the appeal is refused. The criminal
appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be
dismissed and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 892
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.04.2025

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1089 of 2024

Dr. Gomati Dwivedy ...Revisionist
Versus
C.B.I./A.C.B. Branch, Lko. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Navneet Awasthi, Gaurav Chand Kaushik

Counsel for the Respondents:
Anurag Kumar Singh

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 91 - Application for production of
document by accused at the stage prior to defence
- Rejection justified - Order refusing sanction for
prosecution of co-accused neither relevant nor
necessary at pre-charge stage - Not a document
falling under Section 91 Cr.P.C. when invoked by
accused at framing of charge - Section does not
confer an enforceable right on the accused to
summon documents for defence before charge is
framed - Verification of affidavit filed with the
application found incomplete and casual - Judicial
disapproval expressed.

Held, in light of St. of Orissa Vs Debendra
Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568, the right of
the accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C.
ordinarily arises only at the stage of
defence. A document refusing sanction for
prosecution of a co-accused is not one
which can be compelled for production
under Section 91 at the pre-charge stage.
The revision was devoid of merit and was
rightly rejected.

Case Law Discussed:

1. St. of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi,
(2005) 1 SCC 568.

2.
Criminal
Trials
Guidelines
Regarding
Inadequacies and Deficiencies, In Re Vs St. of
Andhra Pradesh & ors., (2021) 10 SCC 598.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,
J.)

1. Heard Sri Navneet Awasthi, the
learned counsel for the revisionist, and Sri