Disposed¶16

Amit Kumar Vishwakarma and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Apr 2026CRLA/10826/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal No. 10826 of 2025; Allahabad High Court; Madan Pal Singh, J.; omnibus and vague allegations; quashing of cognizance; interim protection; no coercive steps; Sections 147, 308, 504, 506 I.P.C.; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(va); FIR dated 29.09.2023; Case Crime No. 311 of 2023; Criminal Case No. 916 of 2024; Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Basti; abuse of process; prior enmity; Amit Kumar Vishwakarma; Guddu @ Pramila; Sarita; Usha Devi.

What did the court decide?

Interim protection: no coercive steps against appellant nos. 2 and 3 till the next date of listing; three weeks' time granted to the learned A.G.A. to file a counter affidavit, rejoinder within two weeks thereafter; matter to be listed thereafter. ¶16

Amit Kumar Vishwakarma and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether continuation of criminal proceedings against appellant nos. 2 and 3 (Guddu @ Pramila and Sarita) is legally unsustainable in the absence of specific allegations against them, warranting setting aside of the cognizance order to that extent.

¶11

Court's answer

Interim direction: till the next date of listing, no coercive steps shall be taken against appellant nos. 2 and 3 (Guddu @ Pramila and Sarita) in pursuance of Criminal Case No. 916 of 2024; the appeal remains pending, with the learned A.G.A. granted three weeks to file a counter affidavit and rejoinder within two weeks thereafter. The merits of the challenge were not decided.

¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Madan Pal Singh, J.) in Criminal Appeal No. 10826 of 2025, Amit Kumar Vishwakarma & 3 others v. State of U.P. & another (April 22, 2026). The appeal challenges cognizance taken against all the appellants in Criminal Case No. 916 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 311 of 2023 (FIR dated 29.09.2023), Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Basti, under Sections 147, 308, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Counsel for the appellants contends that the FIR assigns specific allegations of assault only to appellant no. 1, a vague allegation of exhortation to appellant no. 4, and no specific, distinct or overt act to appellant nos. 2 and 3 (Guddu @ Pramila and Sarita), making continuation of proceedings against them legally unsustainable and the cognizance order mechanical. The Court granted the learned A.G.A. three weeks to file a counter affidavit (rejoinder within two weeks thereafter) and, till the next date of listing, directed that no coercive steps be taken against appellant nos. 2 and 3. Merits not decided; no precedent cited or relied upon.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10826 of 2025

¶3

Amit Kumar Vishwakarma And 3 Others

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of U.P. and Another

¶7

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ishwar Prasad Singh, Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Sunil Kumar Verma

¶8

Court No. - 51

¶9

HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

¶10

Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Sunil Kumar Verma, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, and the learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the prosecution is wholly false, motivated, and an abuse of the process of law, and that a plain reading of the First Information Report dated 29.09.2023 demonstrates that specific allegations of assault are levelled only against appellant no. 1, Amit Kumar Vishwakarma, who is alleged to have caused injury on the head of the informant by means of an iron rod/hammer, while a vague and general allegation of exhortation is attributed to appellant no. 4, Usha Devi. It is further contended that no specific, distinct, or overt act has been assigned to appellant nos. 2 and 3, namely Guddu @ Pramila and Sarita, whose names have been merely mentioned in a casual and omnibus manner without any clear role in the alleged occurrence. Even as per the FIR version, the act of causing injury is confined to appellant no. 1 alone, and thus their implication appears to be due to exaggeration and prior enmity. It is argued that, in the absence of specific allegations, particularly in offences under the I.P.C. and the SC/ST Act, continuation of proceedings against appellant nos. 2 and 3 is legally unsustainable; however, the court below has failed to appreciate this material aspect and has mechanically taken cognizance against all the appellants, rendering the impugned order liable to be set aside to that extent.

¶12

CRLA No. 10826 of 2025

¶13

¶14

Learned A.G.A. prays for and is granted three weeks’ time to file a counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶15

List thereafter.

¶16

Till the next date of listing, no coercive steps shall be taken against appellant nos. 2 and 3 (Guddu @ Pramila and Sarita) in pursuance of Criminal Case No. 916 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 311 of 2023, under Sections 147, 308, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Basti.

¶17

(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

¶18

April 22, 2026 pks

¶19

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

Amit Kumar Vishwakarma and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar Vishwakarma and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Dubey and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Rauf and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashwani Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Omprakash Yadav and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Nafees Ahamad and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another