Meera Devi and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1616 of 2026

Meera Devi And 3 Others	Versus	.....Appellant(s)
State of U.P. and Another		.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)		: Rajesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)		: G.A.

¶4

Court No. - 51

¶5

HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Amrit Raj, learned AGA for the State.

¶7

Learned AGA states that notice on the respondent/informant has been served, but none has appeared on behalf of the said respondent to oppose the appeal. Copy of the notice provided by the learned AGA be kept on record.

¶8

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellants with a prayer to allow the appeal and set aside the charge sheet dated 30.01.2025 and cognizance & summoning order dated 07.05.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Kushinagar at Padrauna, in Special Session Trial No. 583/2025, (State Vs. Sunny Dayal & others), arising out of Case Crime No. 432/2024, u/s 115(2), 352, 351(3), 324(4) Β.Ν.S. and 3(1) Da & 3 (1) Dha of SC/ST Act, Police Station Khadda, District Kushinagar.

¶9

Briefly stated, an FIR against the appellants was lodged by the informant, who alleged that they came at her house approximately 9:00 am on 29.11.2024 and started abusing and

¶10

CRLA No. 1616 of 2026

¶11

2

¶12

assaulting her by making a false allegation that she has demolished their 'shanty'. She further stated that when she ran inside her house, all the appellants also assaulted her inside her house.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that allegation in the first information report has stemmed out from an illmotive which respondent/informant nurtured against the appellants because of fact that father-in-law of informant has executed a sale-deed of his land in favour of appellant no.4. The said sale-deed was executed in the year 2015 and a civil suit for permanent injunction was also instituted by appellant no.1 and 4 in the year 2024. Said civil suit is still pending. It was further submitted that respondent bores grudge towards the appellants due to the fact that their ancestral land was transferred in their favour by father-in-law of informant.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the respondent/informant has not mentioned regarding the use of casteist slurs by the appellants in the FIR. Similarly, she has also not mentioned about the said allegation in her statement before the Investigating Officer. Even the independent witnesses interrogated during the investigation have not stated that any casteist slurs were used by the appellants. The respondent/informant has not sustained any injuries during the incident. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P. 2008 (12) SCC 531 to contend that it has been postulate by Hon'ble Court that a victim of SC/ST is bound to declare in FIR/complainant that he/she belongs to community of SC/ST and opposite party does not belong to the community of SC/ST. However, said mandate was not followed by the informant. She has nowhere mentioned in her FIR that she belongs to community of SC/St and appellants do not belong to the same community. Hence, basic ingredients to constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act are missing. Therefore, proceedings against the appellants for offence under the SC/ST

¶15

CRLA No. 1616 of 2026

¶16

3

¶17

Act are unsustainable and are liable to be set aside.

¶18

Learned AGA submitted that informant, her family members and other independent witnesses have corroborated the version stated in the FIR. Independent witnesses have candidly stated that casteist slurs were used by the appellants during the altercation. It was further submitted that both parties are residents of same locality and there is no doubt that both of them were aware of each other identities. The allegations in the FIR find their corroboration from the statements of informant and other witnesses including the independent witnesses. Hence, no ground exists to interfere in the impugned summoning of taking cognizance against the appellants.

¶19

I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.

¶20

Informant, her family members, and other independent witnesses have corroborated the prosecution story. Some independent eye witnesses, who probably support the informant have stated that casteist slurs were used. Even certain independent witnesses, who were interrogated during the investigation, have stated that a civil suit regarding the disputed land has been instituted by appellant-Meera Devi and her husband, which is still pending. They have also stated that when appellants came at the disputed land, they found that their 'shanty' was demolished and when they inquired from the informant/respondent about the demolition of shanty, the alleged incident occurred. They have also stated that both parties were involved in the altercation. Therefore, the occurrence of alleged incident finds its support not only from informant and other witnesses but also from the eye account of independent witnesses.

¶21

So far as the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gorige Pentaiah (supra) is concerned, there is no mention whether parties were known to each other prior to the incident or not. There may be various circumstances under which a

¶22

CRLA No. 1616 of 2026

¶23

4

¶24

crime against a person belonging to the community of SC/ST can be committed. There is every probability that victim and perpetrator belong to the different localities. In such circumstances, it is difficult for a third party including court to presume whether both parties knew each other's identity. This Court feels that ratio of the said judgment is applicable when the above mentioned circumstance exists. Fact of this case are entirely different. Both parties are resident of same locality and a dispute also exists between them. Hence, it cannot be presumed that they are unaware of each other's identity.

¶25

In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any justification to interfere in the impugned order.

¶26

This criminal appeal is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶27

March 18, 2026 SK

¶28

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

¶29

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

Meera Devi and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meera Devi and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kusum Vishwakarma vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandra Prakash Mishra and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Arvind Kaushal @ Arvind Soni vs State of U.P. and Another

Saurabh Pandey @ Chhotu Pandey and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Jainendra Kumar vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Baitullah vs State of Up and Another