Nebu Lal and 6 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Criminal Appeal under section 14-A (1) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed against the impugned order dated 13.9.2024, passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Ambedkar Nagar, in Sessions Case No.126 of 2023; State Versus Nebu Lal and others, arising out of Case Crime No.8 of 2022, under sections- 306, 511, 504, 352 I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) 5-A of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, relating to the Police Station- Hanswar, DistrictAmbedkar Nagar. By the impugned order, the learned court below has dismissed the discharge application filed by the accused appellant under section 227 Cr.P.C.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, according to the prosecution's version, the victim was subjected to harassment and matrimonial cruelty by her in-laws as she had solemnized an inter caste marriage with her husband, Amarjeet. The FIR in the case was lodged by the father of the victim, who alleged that the husband, in-laws, and relatives of the husband had harassed and ill treated the victim and turned her out two days prior to the incident. Her husband went away and left her at his home on January 10, 2022. The victim had consumed a poisonous

¶14

CRLA No. 3095 of 2024

¶15

2

¶16

substance due to the torture by her husband and in-laws.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellants next submitted that the victim survived the incident, and therefore the FIR was lodged under the aforementioned sections. The statement of the victim was recorded under section 161 CrPC, on 12.01.2022 before a Nayab Tahsildar and under section 164 Cr.P.C. on February 9, 2022 before the judicial magistrate concerned. During investigation, she stated that she had consumed Harpic due to the ill-treatment of her in-laws. Her father-in-law had disinherited her husband from the property and stated that she had no place in the house. She belongs to a scheduled caste whereas her husband is a Yadav. The victim stated in her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. that she is not inclined to raise a quarrel with her husband's family, as her husband is ready to keep her. Therefore, she is not willing to take any action against her husband and in-laws.

¶18

He next submitted that the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. before the chief judicial magistrate carries much weight in comparison to the record the statement to other authorities. The learned court below dismissed the discharge application moved by the appellants including the father-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law and daughter of her brother-in-law (Jeth) as well as brother-in-law (Behnoi) of her husband. Thus, all the family members and near relatives of her husband are included in the FIR with an ulterior motive. There is no cogent evidence to support the allegation that the appellants drove the victim to commit suicide by their conduct and due to which she tried to attempt suicide, but fortunately, she survived.

¶19

The matter requires consideration.

¶20

Admit.

¶21

Issue notice to respondent nos. 2 and 3 which shall be served through CJM concerned.

¶22

Steps be taken within a week.

¶23

List on 09.04.2026 as fresh.

¶24

CRLA No. 3095 of 2024

¶25

3

¶26

Till the next date of listing, the proceedings of framing charge shall remain stayed.

¶27

Counter affidavit, if any, may be filed by the next date of listing.

¶28

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶29

February 11, 2026

¶30

dk/

¶31

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

Nebu Lal and 6 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nebu Lal and 6 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Neha Thru. Her Husband Alok Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Pinki Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Neelam Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko. and 2 Others

C/M Baba Prem Das Junior High Schoool Thru.Manager,Harish Chandra Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Civil Sectt. Lko. and 5 Others

Ramesh Chauhan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sabir Hussain @ Sabir Khan vs Deputy Commissioner Food Devi Patan Mandal Gonda and 3 Others