Smt. Mukesh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Smt. Mukesh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 17.05.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Saharanpur rejecting the appellant's application under Section 173(4) of the BNSS is liable to be set aside in this criminal appeal under Section 14A(1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Court's answer

Where an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (now Section 173(4) BNSS) has been rejected, the remedy available to the appellant is to file a complaint case under Section 210(1)(a) read with Section 223 of the BNSS, following the settled position relied upon from Aleque Padamsee v. Union of India and the Full Bench decision in Father Thomas v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

Ratio / Principle

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the allegations made by the complainant, the order passed by the trial court is correct in the eyes of law and no interference is warranted.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal No. 10275 of 2024 (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Madan Pal Singh, J.) filed by Smt. Mukesh under Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 challenging the order dated 17.05.2023 of the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Saharanpur in Complaint Case No. 247 of 2023, whereby her application under Section 173(4) of the BNSS (formerly Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.) seeking direction for registration of FIR and investigation was rejected on grounds of doubtful allegations, lack of medical evidence and independent corroboration, prior enmity over monetary disputes involving the shop owner, inherent improbabilities in the prosecution version, and earlier similar complaints described in the police report as exaggerated and motivated. Relying on Aleque Padamsee v. Union of India (AIR 2007 SC 684) and the Full Bench decision in Father Thomas v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2011(1) ADJ 333 (FB), the Court held that even where such an application is rejected, the available remedy is to file a complaint case under Section 210(1)(a) read with Section 223 of the BNSS (formerly Section 190(1)(a) read with Section 200 Cr.P.C.). Finding the trial court's order correct in the eyes of law, the Court declined interference and dismissed the criminal appeal.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10275 of 2024

Smt. Mukesh

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Anil Kumar Mishra .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 51

HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

Heard Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, and the learned AGA for the State. Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 3.

By means of the present criminal appeal under Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the appellant seeks to set aside the order dated 17.05.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Saharanpur in Complaint Case No. 247 of 2023, whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 173(4) of the BNSS has been rejected.

From a careful perusal of the judgment, it appears that the learned Special Judge has declined to exercise jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the ground that the allegations made by the applicant are not supported by sufficient prima facie material and appear to be doubtful in light of the surrounding circumstances. The Court has taken into consideration the police report, prior enmity arising out of monetary disputes involving the shop owner, and the absence of independent corroboration, including the lack of medical evidence and statements of nearby witnesses who did not support the occurrence. It further appears that the Court found inherent improbabilities in the prosecution version, particularly the circumstance that the accused persons, being residents of the same village as the shop owner, had no plausible reason to search for him at the alleged place of occurrence. The Court has also noted that similar complaints had been made earlier which, according to the police report, were exaggerated and motivated by previous disputes. Accordingly, the Court concluded that no sufficient ground exists to direct registration of an FIR and investigation; therefore, the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was rejected.

Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Aleque Padamsee v. Union of India (AIR 2007 SC 684), the Full Bench of this Court in Father Thomas v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2011(1) ADJ

CRLA No. 10275 of 2024

2

333 (FB), has held that even where an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (now Section 173(4) BNSS) has been rejected, the remedy available to the appellant is to file a complaint case before the court concerned under Section 190(1)(a) read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. (now Section 210(1)(a) read with Section 223 of the BNSS).

In view of the above settled position of law, the proper remedy available to the appellant is to file a complaint case under Section 210(1)(a) read with Section 223 of the BNSS.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the allegations made by the complainant, the order passed by the trial court is found to be correct in the eyes of law. No interference is warranted in the present case.

Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed.

(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

May 5, 2026

pks

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