Rajkumar Pal vs State Of U.P. And Another
- Neutral2026:AHC:106148
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an accused seeks to quash criminal proceedings under Section 14A-1 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the High Court may grant a period of grace to permit the accused to file a discharge application before the trial court, and impose a stay on coercive measures during that period. Where a discharge application is moved before the trial court, the court shall not refuse to discharge the accused merely because the material on record at the time of consideration of the discharge application is the same as that which existed at the time the accused was summoned; the court must independently consider whether the charge is groundless notwithstanding the identity of material. Where, after hearing the counsel for the accused on a discharge application, the trial court is satisfied that the accused was rightly summoned and the material on record does not indicate the charges to be groundless, the court shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law and is at liberty to adopt measures permissible in law to secure the presence of the accused.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
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 entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 23 of 2026 (State Vs. Rajkumar Pal) arising out of Case Crime No. 260 of 2025, under Sections- 76, 115(2), 352, 351(2) of B.N.S. and Section 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 appellants 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 appellants are 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 appellants 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 7, 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