Priya and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (1) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short 'the SC/ST Act') has been preferred by the appellants with the prayer to set-aside the impugned order dated 06.05.2025 passed by learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge SC/ST Act, Shamli whereby the objection application filed by the appellants was rejected and charges have been framed against the appellants under Sections 323/34, 504/34, 506/34 IPC and 3(1)(r) 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and also made a prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 04 of 2023 (Ranpal Vs. Sidharth & Others), under Sections 323/34, 504/34, 506/34 I.P.C. and 3(1)(r) 3(1)(s) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Aadarsh Mandi, District- Shamli.

The genesis of the prosecution case is that the informant initially moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the appellant and two unknown persons, on which the Court directed registration of the case. In consequence, the after completing investigation, the police submitted its report to the court concerned. The court below recorded the statement of the complainant as well as witnesses recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.

As per allegations in the complaint, when the opposite party no.2 asked for his payment, the appellants committed physical assault and also abused him with caste related words.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. He has further submitted that as per statement of the victim/complainant and witnesses recorded under Section 200 & 202 Cr.P.C., prima facie, no case is made out against the appellants.

CRLA No. 5753 of 2025

2

It is further submitted that the trial court passed an erroneous and perverse order rejecting the discharge application without proper appreciation of evidence. The prosecution, according to the appellants, has been instituted with mala fide intent, and no prima facie case is made out from the allegations made in the complaint.

It is also urged that the impugned order rejecting the discharge application is illegal, mechanical, and passed without application of judicial mind. Therefore, it deserves to be set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and the learned A.G.A. submitted that charges have already been framed by the trial court. It was emphasised that the trial court, while rejecting the discharge application, has taken into account the statement of the victim/complainant and witnesses recorded under Section 200 & 202 Cr.P.C., which clearly supports the allegations in the FIR. The investigating officer has collected material showing the presence of the accused at the spot. The defence of false implication is a matter of trial, not discharge.

Having perused the impugned order dated 6.5.2025, it is evident that the Special Judge has meticulously referred to the FIR, the statement of the victim/complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and the corroborative statements of witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The Court rightly held that at the stage of considering discharge or framing charge, the test is not whether the evidence is sufficient for conviction but whether, if taken at face value, it discloses commission of an offence. Truthfulness, reliability, and sufficiency of the evidence are matters for trial.

This Court finds itself in agreement with the reasoning of the trial court. The allegations, made in the complaint and reiterated in the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., prima facie constitute offences under Sections 323/34, 504/34, 506/34 I.P.C. and 3(1)(r) 3(1)(s) SC/ST Act. Hence, no ground is made out to interfere with the order rejecting the discharge application.

(Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.)

¶22

September 16, 2025 Krishna*

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

Priya and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another