Neelam @ Shanti and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Dec 2025CRLA/4030/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against summoning order under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) S.C./S.T. Act. Appellants argued complaint was a delayed counterblast and occurrence in a dwelling house, not a public place. Court admitted appeal, issued notice, and stayed coercive process against appellants till next date.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued; no coercive process against appellants till next listing (06.02.2026).

Neelam @ Shanti and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4030 of 2025

¶3

Neelam @ Shanti And 4 Others

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Appellant(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Rajesh Kumar Pandey : G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 27

¶10

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶12

The instant criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 01.08.2025 signed on 02.08.2025 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Ayodhya in Complaint Case No.122 of 2024 "Pushpa Devi versus Mathura Prasad & others", under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC & Section 3(2)va S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Patranga, District Ayodhya, in which the appellant Mathura Prasad has been summoned for charge under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC & Section 3(2)va S.C./S.T. Act and other appellants have been summoned for charge under Section 323 IPC.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the present case, a complaint has been filed one month after the incident with a vague assertion that her FIR was not lodged after much efforts. He next submitted that the present FIR is a counterblast to an FIR lodged at the instance of a appellant no.1, Neelam, vide Case Crime No.94 of 2024, under sections 323, 336, 452 IPC, Police Station Patranga, District Ayodhya, regarding the same incident and charge sheet has been filed after investigation in the case. The complainant has deliberately shown the incident as occurring on 24.04.2024 at 4 P.M., whereas no such incident as stated in the complaint occurred. He has also submitted that in regard to the FIR lodged at the instance of the appellants, Shanti Devi,

¶14

CRLA No. 4030 of 2025

¶15

¶16

Nandini, and Laxmi suffered injuries and their injury reports are filed as Annexure No.2 to the affidavit filed in the present case. He has also submitted that the occurrence took place in the house, according to the complaint version, in a dwelling house. Therefore, the alleged place of occurrence is not being a public place, offence against section 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act is not made out. He has also submitted that the injury report of the appellants does not inspire confidence as it is dated 25.04.2024, whereas opposite party/ respondent no.2 has mentioned in her application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. that she got her medico-legal examination on 25.05.2024.

¶17

Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that so far as the respondent's version regarding date of her medico-legal examination is concerned, it may be an outcome of typing error.

¶18

Matter requires consideration.

¶19

Admit.

¶20

Issue notice to respondent no.2 which shall be served through C.J.M. concerned, returnable at an early date.

¶21

List on 06.02.2026.

¶22

Till the next date of listing, no coercive process shall be adopted against the appellants.

¶23

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶24

December 15, 2025

¶25

Mohd. Sharif

¶26

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Neelam @ Shanti and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelam @ Shanti and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jujhar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mo. Shakil and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Awadh Kishor @ Guddu and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Santosh Kumar vs State . of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Bhawana Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Subhash Chandra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others