Allahabad High Court
Gufran Ahmad vs State Of U.P. And Another on 31 October, 2025
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:191729
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9866 of 2025
Gufran Ahmad
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Ramesh Kumar Yadav, Sheo Prasad Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 86
HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A for the State as well as perused the record.
2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred to set-aside the impugned charge sheet no.159 of 2025 dated 24.06.2025 as well as cognizance order dated 21.7.2025 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Jhansi in Session Case No. 1090 of 2025. (State Vs. Gufran) arising out of Case Crime No. 84 of 2025, under Sections 64, 308 (4), 352, 351 (3) BNS and Section 3 (2) (v) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Nawabad, District- Jhansi.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is innocent. The impugned FIR is delayed about more than five months. The appellant and victim are consenting party. The victim herself refused for her medical examination. It is furtherr contended that the victim made a compromise before In-Charge Police Station- Kotwali, District- Jhansi. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment in the case of Hitesh Verema Vs. State of Uttarakhand 2020(10) SCC 710. It is further contended that as per FIR as well as statement of the victim recorded under Sections 180 & 183 BNSS, no offence against the appellant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intentions for the purposes of harassment. The learned court below has taken cognizance without judicial mind and the same is liable to be set-aside.
4. Per contra, the learned AGA opposed the appeal and submitted that at the stage of 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. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the appeal having no force is liable to be dismissed.
5. From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the appellant. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.L.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 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the appellants has got a right of discharge as the case may be, before the court below and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.
6. In the present case, the victim has fully supported the prosecution version in her statements recorded under Sections180 & 183 BNSS. Prima facie case is made out against the appellant. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. The prayer for quashing the proceedings of case as well as cognizance/summoning order is refused.
7. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed.
(Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.)
October 31, 2025
Krishna*
