Dismissed¶¶13

Dilsher Prasad v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC3 Aug 2025CRLA/4499/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4499 of 2025; Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.; Section 14-A(1) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act; Section 173(4) B.N.S.S.; refusal to register FIR; Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Pilibhit; Criminal Misc. Case No.588 of 2024; wheat purchase payment dispute Rs.7,69,680/-; caste abuse; commercial dispute given criminal colour; no cognizable offence prima facie; appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The main dispute between the parties relates to payment of money for purchase and sale of wheat, and the accused's utterance of castiest slurs was made with the intention of giving a criminal form to a case of civil/commercial nature. ¶¶12

Dilsher Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 27.01.2025 of the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Pilibhit rejecting the appellant's application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. suffered from infirmity or illegality, i.e., whether a prima facie cognizable offence was made out warranting registration of the FIR. +1 more

¶¶9

Court's answer

The court below rightly observed that the complainant can obtain relief from the competent court in respect of the matter related to purchase and sale.

¶¶13

Ratio / Principle

¶¶12

Key takeaways

The appellant nowhere in his application stated that the accused took money from him with the intention of cheating.ratio¶¶12
Prima facie no cognizable offence is made out against the opposite parties; there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order, and the appeal lacks merit.ratio¶¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(1), SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — Dismissal of application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. upheld. The appellant's application for registration of FIR alleging that the opposite parties purchased wheat worth Rs.7,69,680/- (Rs.93,600/- paid in cash; Rs.6,76,080/- withheld) and thereafter assaulted him and abused him with caste-related words was rejected by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Pilibhit on 27.01.2025. The Allahabad High Court (Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.) held that the main dispute was payment of money for purchase and sale of wheat, that the castiest slurs were uttered with the intention of giving a criminal form to a civil/commercial dispute, and that the appellant nowhere alleged an intention to cheat; the complainant could seek relief before the competent court. Prima facie no cognizable offence was made out, no infirmity or illegality was found in the impugned order, and the appeal was dismissed (order dated 4.8.2025).

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:130570

¶2

Court No. - 83

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4499 of 2025

¶4

Appellant :- Dilsher Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Nigam,Satya Niwas Prasad Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Mr. Girish Kumar Singh, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama today on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3, which is taken on record.

¶7

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 27.01.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Pilibhit in Criminal Misc. Case No.588 of 2024 (Dilsher Prasad vs. Gautam Chandra @ Yogesh Jaiswal etc.) under Sections 173 (4) of B.N.S.S., Police Station Madho Tanda, District Pilibhit.

¶8

As per allegation contained in the application given under Section 173 (4) B.N.S.S., the opposite party nos.2 and 3 have purchased wheat from the appellant amounting to Rs.7,69,680/- for which Rs.93,600/- has been paid in cash but they have not paid the remaining out of Rs.6,76,080/-. It is further alleged that when the appellant has demanded for payment of his remaining amount, the respondent nos.2 and 3 in presence of other public persons have assaulted the appellant and also abused by caste related words and appellant has also been threatened to face dire consequences.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant states that appellant went to the police station to get the FIR registered but his FIR has not been registered, then, he approached the court by filing application under Section 173 (4) B.N.S.S. on 17.12.2024 before the Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Pilibhit, who without going into the depth of the matter and without applying judicial mind, rejected his application in a very mechanical and cursory manner vide its order dated 27.01.2025.

¶10

Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3

¶11

vehemently opposed and has submitted that the dispute is purely commercial in nature but the appellant has tried to give criminal colour. The court below has rightly rejected the application of the appellant.

¶12

In the instant case, the main dispute between the parties is related to the payment of money for the purchase and sale of wheat and the statement of the accused by abusing castiest slurs has been made with the intention of giving a criminal form to a case of civil/commercial nature. It is also noteworthy that appellant nowhere in his application has stated that the accused have taken money from him with the intention of cheating.

¶13

The court below while dismissing the application of the appellant has rightly observed that complainant can obtain relief from the competent court in respect of the matter related to purchase and sale. Prima facie no cognizable offence is made out against the opposite parties. There is no infirmity and illegality in the order impugned. The appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed .

¶14

Order Date :- 4.8.2025 Ajeet

¶15

Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dilsher Prasad v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilsher Prasad v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases