Champa Devi @ Champa @ Badka and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko and Another

The instant criminal appeal has been preferred against the cognizance taken in the summoning order dated 04.02.2025 passed by learned Special Judge Judge, SC/ST Act, Bahraich in Special Criminal Case No. 116 of 2025 arising out Case crime No. 511 of 2024 , Police StationPayagpur District- Bahraich whereby the cognizance has been taken and the appellants are summoned to face trial on the basis of charge-sheet filed in the case under Sections 115(2), 352 ,351(3) BNS and Sections 3(2) (5-A) & 3(1) (Da) (Dha) SC.ST Act.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Investigating Officer, after investigation that there was dispute between the informant- Rajpati and the named accused Smt. Champa Devi @ Barka regarding land. The son of the informant Ram Gopal and the husband of named accused Smt. Champa Devi @ Barka are residing in Delhi in connection with earning their livlihood where some dispute occurred between them and on account of the dispute between the son of the informant and husband of the name accused Smt. Champa Devi @ Barka on 01.11.2024, the accused Smt. Champa Devi @ Barka and Lalita Devi @ Chhotka were engaged in Maarpeet and intentional insult and abuse by caste effective words and hurling threats to the informant. After investigation, name of two

¶14

CRLA No. 79 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

persons Shrawan and Soraj son of Hari Ram was deleted.

¶17

He next submitted that in the present case incident is said to have occurred on 01.11.2024 wherein FIR has been lodged on 25.11.2025 i.e. after 24 days . In the injury report of the injured, complain of pain only on six parts of the body is shown. No internal injuries were found. In the opinion of the doctor all the injuries are simple in nature and occurred about one month ago. Instead of present FIR , an application has been filed by Sri Hari Ram Vishwakarma as counter blast on 31.08.2024 before Out Post In-charge against one Mune son Dulare, who belongs to the family of the informant regarding committed tresspass in his land .

¶18

He lastly submitted that inordinate delay in lodging the FIR itself speaks volume against authenticity of the prosecution version .

¶19

Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that although in the FIR, place of incident has not been mentioned but in the statement of the informant, it appears that the incident occurred on pathway near grove of Rangi Lal which is on public place ,therefore it can not be said that offence under Sections 3 (1) (Da) (Dha) and Section 3(2) (V) SC/ST Act is not made out.

¶20

The matter requires consideration.

¶21

Admit.

¶22

Issue notice to respondent no.2 which shall be served through CJM concerned.

¶23

Steps be taken within a week.

¶24

List on 27.02.2026.

¶25

Till the next date of listing, no coercive process shall be taken against the appellants by the court below.