Rahul Kumar Pandey and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3076 of 2025

¶3

Rahul Kumar Pandey And Another

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ramesh Singh, Himanshu Deepak Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Amrendra Singh

¶7

Reserved on 18.02.2026 Delivered on 27.05.2026

¶8

Court No. - 27

¶9

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

¶10

The instant criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 14A(1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by the appellants, who were summoned as accused by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar, vide order dated 27/8/2025, rejecting the closure report submitted by the investigating officer after investigation in Case Crime Number 539 of 2025, Police Station Kotwali Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, and summoning the appellants as accused for the charge under Section 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS and 3(2)(VA), 3(1) Da, Dha of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶11

I have already heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the Respondent number 2.

¶12

The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that complainant Ram Bhej moved an application under Section 173(4) BNSS on 19/5/2025, before the Court of Learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, against the applicants with the allegation that Aasharam and Sadaram, who are real brothers and

¶13

CRLA No. 3076 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

co-villagers, and Shrimati Sugri Devi, the mother of Asharam and Sadaram, executed a registered will deed in favor of Sunita Devi, wife of Asharam, on account of which they used to be altercations between the two brothers. Asha Ram had filed a complaint at Srawan kshetra Police Outpost, in which Sadaram was called at the Outpost. On 11/5/2025, Sadaram visited the Police Outpost along with applicant Ram Bhaj and his brother Mukesh Kumar, Pradeep Kumar, and co-villagers Ashok Kumar Yadav and Rakesh. The Outpost In-charge, Shri Rahul Kumar Pandey, and Constable Brijesh Yadav got infuriated by seeing a complainant and assaulted the applicant, his brother, and witness Ashok Kumar Yadav by belt and boots. He pointed his pistol towards the applicant and insulted him with caste-indicative words. Constable Brijesh Yadav and SI Rahul Pandey gave many slaps on the ear and cheeks of the applicant, due to which he sustained injury on his ear. They also demanded Rs. 30,000/- from him and threatened him that if he failed to pay the sum, they would be challaned under NDPS case. When the applicant expressed his inability to pay money to SI Rahul Kumar Pandey, he challenged the applicant, his brother Mukesh Kumar, and his co-villager Ashok Kumar Pandey under Sections 126, 135, and 170 BNS. He moved an application for lodging the FIR at Police Station Kotwali Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, and also informed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ambedkar Nagar regarding the incident by registered post, but no action was taken. The FIR was lodged in the matter on 15/7/2025 against the applicants under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS and under Section 3(1) (da), 3(1) (Dha) and 3(2) (VA) of the SC/ST Act on the order of the court on the application of respondent no.2 .

¶16

The police investigated the case and filed a closure report with findings

¶17

CRLA No. 3076 of 2025

¶18

3

¶19

that on the basis of evidence collected during investigation and after consideration of statements of witnesses and documents, the said incident was not found to have occurred.

¶20

Learned Special Judge vide order dated 27/8/2025 rejected the final closure report submitted by police in the matter and took cognizance of the allegations of offense against the appellants, on the basis of evidence collected during investigation, placing reliance on the statement of complainant Ram Bhej and witnesses, namely, Mukesh Kumar, Smt Sunita Devi, Sadaram, Rakesh, Indal, Ram Subhash, Pradeep Kumar and Santosh as well as injury reports of Ram Bhej, Ashok Kumr Yadav and Mukesh.

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the present FIR was lodged by respondent no.2 on the basis of an application filed under section 173 (4) BNSS, filed before the court as a counter-blast of an FIR lodged by appellant no.1, S.I. Rahul Kumar Pandey against respondent no.2 Ram Bhej and his brother Mukesh, Pradeep, Ashok Kumar Yadav, Santosh Kumar Yadav and Rakesh 16/5/2025, at 22:41 hours under sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 132, 121 (1) BNS 2023 and Section 7 of the Criminal Amendment Act, Criminal Amendment Law Act 1932. Respondent no.2 moved an application under section 173(4) BNSS on 19/5/2025 before the court i.e. after three days of loding of the FIR against him and others in regard to the same incident dated 11/5/2025.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellants next submitted that in the injury court of Ram Bhej, only complaint of pain on the neck is mentioned but no visible injury is shown. In the injury report of Ashok Kumar Yadav, complains of pain on the left ear and back of the head are shown. In the

¶23

CRLA No. 3076 of 2025

¶24

4

¶25

injury report of Mukesh Kumar, one abrasion on the left elbow and a complaint of pain on the lower back is shown. Thus, the injury reports of the complainant and witnesses indicate that the injuries are superficial in nature.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the Circle Officer, City, Ambedkar Nagar, conducted an inquiry regarding the incident dated 11/5/2025, which occurred on the police outpost, Srawan Kshetra, at around 10 a.m. , giving a detailed report, a copy thereof is filed as Annexure no.8 in the present appeal, which is addressed to learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act. This report was called by the court on the application under section 173(4) BNSS filed by the complainant, Ram Bhej.

¶27

The Circle Officer recorded the statement of Rakesh Kumar, Pradeep Kumar, S.I. Rahul Kumar Pandey, Constable Sohan Lal, Constable Brijesh Kumar, Rajneesh Kumar, Om Prakash Goswami and also perused the CCTV footage of a video of seven minutes eight seconds duration and eight minutes 33 seconds duration of CCTV camera installed in the village Sachivalaya, situated beside the Police Outpost. In the enquiry report Circle Officer stated that in said video, it is shown that the complainant and his companion altercated with SI Rahul Kumar Pandey and constables at the Police Outpost. They assaulted them physically and also threatened to disuniform them. No such incident, as alleged by the complainant, occurred at the Police Outpost on the said day. An FIR was lodged by SI Rahul Kumar Pandey on 16/05/2025.

¶28

He next submitted that the present criminal proceedings are instituted against him with mala fide intention. Learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act

¶29

CRLA No. 3076 of 2025

¶30

5

¶31

summoned the appellants in an unlawful manner, rejecting the closure report submitted by the investigating officer in favor of the appellant. The appellants are police officials, and while discharging their duties, they were themselves manhandled and assaulted by the complainant and his companions.

¶32

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that appellant no.1, SI Rahul Kumar Pandey, was transferred from one outpost to another outpost in the same police station, and he had no business to perform on 11/05/2025, upon coming back to his previous place of posting where he allegedly assaulted, abused, and insulted the complainant and the witnesses. The witnesses, on whose evidence reliance has been placed by the inquiry officer, have not deposed about the incident which took place inside the outpost, against the complainant and the witnesses. The learned trial court has rightly placed reliance on the statements of witnesses, who are aggrieved by the acts of the police and were assaulted and abused by the appellants on the date of the incidence. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court while summoning the appellants to face trial for the offense.

¶33

From the perusal of the record, it appears that there is a cross-version about the incident which took place at the police outpost, Shrawan Kehstra, Police Station, Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar where the version of the appellants is that the complainant and his companions misbehaved, thrashed, and threatened the appellants who were present in a police outpost while discharging their duties. The version of the complainant is that the complainant and witnesses, accompanied by

¶34

CRLA No. 3076 of 2025

¶35

6

¶36

Sadaram, who was at the police outpost in connection with a complaint lodged by his brother Asaram. The appellants abused and assaulted the complainant and companion and also demanded Rs. 30,000/- and threatened him to challan under NDPS case .

¶37

On perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST) Act , it cannot be held that the said order was passed without taking into consideration the evidence collected during the investigation. It is well-established law that while issuing process against the accused, it is required from the court to look into the material collected during the investigation, but the court is not bound with the conclusion of the investigating officer and the court is well within its rights to summon the accused straightwayon the basis of evidence collected during the investigation and proceed with the case in any manner as the case instituted at the police report. The court may also accept the closure report and drop the proceedings. The court may also within its jurisdiction, reject the closure report and direct further investigation in the matter.

¶38

At the stage of summoning the accused, the court has to satisfy itself as to whether a prima facie case is made out to summon the proposed accused to face trial, and it is not incumbent for the court to sift and weigh the evidence on that stage, but of course, it has to apply its judicial mind while issuing process against the accused because after the issuance of process, a person becomes an accused and he has to face the rigors of a criminal trial.

¶39

So far as the penal sections of the BNS are concerned, I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned summoning order passed by the court against the appellant because, at this stage, it cannot be held with

¶40

CRLA No. 3076 of 2025

¶41

7

¶42

certainty on which two versions of the incident taken by the parties is correct.

¶43

So far as the charges under Section 3 (1) Da , Dha and section 3 (2) VA of the SC/ST Act are concerned, Section 3 (1) Da , Dha of SC/ST Act provides for punishment to a person who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, if he intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view or abuse any member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe by caste name in any place within public view. Section 3 (2) VA of the SC/ST Act provides whosoever not being a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe commits any offence specified in the Schedule, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with such punishment as specified under the Indian Penal Code for such offences and shall also be liable to fine.

¶44

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the recent judgment arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 14100/2025 "Sohanvir @ Sohanvir Dhama and others Vs. State of U.P. and another " has observed in aragraph 9, 10, and 11 as under:-

¶45

"9. In order to examine this contention, it is necessary to refer to Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, which reads as under: "3. Punishments for offences of atrocities. (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view;"

¶46

10. The expression "any place within public view" has been interpreted by this Court in numerous decisions, most recently in Karuppudayar v. State

¶47

CRLA No. 3076 of 2025

¶48

8

¶49

represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi, Trichy & Others 2025, INSC 132. Relying on Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) 10 SCC 710, this Court reaffirmed that:

¶50

11. It could thus be seen that, to be a place 'within public view', the place should be open where the members of the public can witness or hear the utterance made by the accused to the victim. If the alleged offence takes place within the four corners of the wall where members of the public are not present, then it cannot be said that it has taken place at a place within public view.

¶51

11. A perusal of the Application filed by the complainant under Section 156(3) of the CrPC reveals that the alleged casteist abuses were stated to have been used by the Appellants inside the premises of the complainant. This circumstance, on its face, does not satisfy the statutory requirement that the abuses were made "in any place within public view," which is an essential component of the offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. The house of the complainant cannot be considered to be within public view"

¶52

In the present case, the allegation against the appellants is that they abused, assaulted, and threatened the complainant and his companion inside the police outpost. This incident cannot be said to be happened in public view, as observed by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment. Therefore, in the present case, the ingredients of the aforesaid provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not prima facie attracted Thus, the summoning order passed against the appellants under the said section of the SC/ST (P.A.) Act is not tenable and the impugned order is liable to be set aside partly in respect of the offenses under the SC/ST (P.A.) Act.

¶53

In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned summoning order is partly set aside in respect of the charges under the SC/ST (P.A.) Act

¶54

CRLA No. 3076 of 2025

¶55

9

¶56

and affirmed for the charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sahita.

¶57

20 The learned Special Judge is directed to remand the case to the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned for the trial of the appellants for the charges under Bharatiya Nyaya Sahita 2023. As the summoning order is partly set aside in respect of the charges under the offenses of the SC/ST (P.A.) Act, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned shall proceed to try the case for the charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sahita himself, or may transfer it to the magistrate who has been empowered by him to try the case of the police station concerned under work distribution order.

¶58

The revision stands partly allowed in the aforesaid manner.

¶59

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶60

May 27, 2026 dk/

¶61

Digitally signed by :- DEVENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rahul Kumar Pandey and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Kumar Pandey and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

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

Agyaram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rakesh Rathore vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home/Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Saifu @ Ramdas vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko.

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

Kayamuddin vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 4 Others

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