Rakesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

The instant criminal Appeal U/S-14.A (1) of Schedule Caste/ Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, against the order dated 04.04.2026 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Sitapur, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 72/2026 (Rakesh Kumar Versus Shanu and others), has been filed by the appellant u/s 173 (4) BNSS, Corresponding provision U/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., for lodging the First Information Report against O.P. Nos.2 and 3, P.S. Rampur Mathura, District Sitapur.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the applicant had filed an application under Section 173(4), B.N.S.S. before the Special Judge, SC/ST Court, Sitapur, with the allegation that he had applied for loan on online portal under Mukhyamantri Yuva Udyami Yojana. After sanction of loan he had filed his papers at Regional Aryavrat Bank, Branch Chhataoni. After verification, the respondent No. 1 Shanu called him and asked him to pay Rs. 5000.00 for sanction of loan and when the appellant refused to oblige him, he threatened him to get out, otherwise he will make such a report that his loan will never be passed. On 22.01.2026, the appellant moved a complaint before the District Magistrate, Sitapur, in this regard, due to which respondents became angry and when the appellant was moved to his home from utensils shop at about 6.00 p.m., they met him on the way and abused, threatened and insulted him by caste indicating words, and also assaulted him by kicks and fists. The appellant approached the police station and filed an application on 29.01.2026, but no action was taken. He also filed an application through registered post on 16.02.2026, but no action was taken thereon also. The appellant next submitted that the learned Special Judge dismissed the appellant's application under Section 173(4), B.N.S.S., placing reliance on the report submitted by the police station to the effect that no case has been registered in respect of the alleged offence at the police station.

¶14

The learned counsel further submitted that the learned court below has dismissed the application despite the fact that cognizable offence is made out in the case, and assigned a reason that the allegations are made by the appellant/applicant against the opposite parties due to enmity and to harass

¶15

CRLA No. 1279 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

them. No particulars have been given by the applicant as to before whom the opposite party abused him, what was the nature of abuse. The application appears to have been moved with a view to exert pressure on the opposite parties.

¶18

On a perusal of the report submitted by the concerned Sub Inpector Sri Ashok Kumar Shukla in the complaint filed by the appellant, it is apparent, that the applicant operates a utensils shop. In December 2025, he had paid Rs. 2500.00 online to the respondent Shanu Dixit, who is posted in Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank, Branch Chhataoni, Bhagautipur, privately, towards notary stamp and balance preparation, however, in view of non-sanction of loan Shanu Dixit had returned Rs. 2500.00 to him on 29.01.2026, but subsequently some altercation took place between respondents and the applicant, due to which this application has been moved.

¶19

Although learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is not stated in the police report that in what manner Rs. 2500.00 were taken by the respondent No. 1 online from him for documentation and other processing, and the same were returned to the applicant.

¶20

From a perusal of application under Section 173(4), B.N.S.S. moved by the appellant/applicant before the Special Judge, SC/ST Court, Sitapur, there is no such allegation that the applicant had paid any money online to opposite party No. 1, rather it is stated therein that the respondents were demanding Rs. 5000.00 from him to get the loan sanctioned, and subsequently they insulted, abused and threatened him on 29.01.2026. I find no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the order passed by the court below. The appeal is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed in limine , however, the appellant is at liberty to file criminal complaint against the private respondents, if he thinks fit, before the learned court below. If any such complaint is filed, same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.

¶21

The appeal stands dismissed with the above observations.

¶22

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶23

May 4, 2026 A.Nigam

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rakesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

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

Amarjeet and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nyay Lucknow and Another

Jaya Singh @ Jaya Singh Verma and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 6 Others

Avadhesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Atul Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Ghanshyam Pal and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Shri Mukesh Shokeen vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Affairs Lko. and 3 Others