Bagedu Alias Ramansh Raj Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another
- Neutral2026:AHC:104714
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an accused person seeks discharge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, a court considering a discharge application need not be bound by the view it formed at the stage of issuing summons; if, upon hearing the accused's counsel on the discharge application, the court forms the view that the accused ought not to have been summoned and the charge is groundless, it shall discharge the accused notwithstanding that the material available at the time of summoning remains the same.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Grijesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. The present appeal under Section 14A-1 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed to quash the cognizance order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST Act, Chandauli in Special Session No. 781 of 2025 (State Vs. Begedu @ Ramanshraj Singh & Ors.) arising out of Case Crime No. 52 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 333, 352 & 76 of B.N.S. and Section 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.
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, 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.
9. With the aforesaid observations, this appeal stands disposed of.
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
May 6, 2026
Akbar
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free