Km. Richa Dhiman v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Apr 2026CRLA/1178/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRLA No. 1178 of 2026; Km. Richa Dhiman v. State of U.P.; Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Court No. 27; Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.; Section 14-A(1) S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, 1989; further examination-in-chief of de facto complainant; Sessions Case No.1406 of 2025; Case Crime No.148 of 2025; Sections 142, 115(2), 351(3), 70(1) BNS; Section 3(2)5 S.C./S.T Act; P.S. Gangaghat, District Unnao; notice through C.J.M.; listed 26.05.2026.

What did the court decide?

Notice ordered to respondent no.2, to be served through the C.J.M., returnable at an early date; steps within a week; appeal listed on 26.05.2026 as fresh. No substantive relief adjudicated at this stage. ¶¶12

Km. Richa Dhiman vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1178 of 2026

Km. Richa Dhiman

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Dinesh Kumar, Santosh Kumar, Umesh Kumar Maurya Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 27

¶8

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

¶9

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

¶10

Instant criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, 1989 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 25.02.2026 passed by learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act)/ Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Unnao in Sessions Case No.1406 of 2025 "State of U.P. versus Dheeraj Agnihotri", arising out of Case Crime No.148 of 2025, under Sections 142, 115(2), 351(3), 70(1) BNS and Section 3(2)5 of S.C./S.T Act, Police Station Gangaghat, District Unnao.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is de facto complainant in the case. Her examination-in-chief and crossexamination were done on 18.12.2025, which is still continuing. On perusal of her statement, she found that her statement-in-chief was not recorded properly, as per her version. Therefore, many important facts which she had told were left out in recording of her examination-in-chief. Therefore, her further examination-in-chief may kindly be directed but learned court below dismissed the said application on technical grounds that her examination-in-chief has already been concluded on 17.11.2025 and her cross-examination was done on 18.12.2025.

¶12