Dismissed¶17

Radhe v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC25 Mar 2026CRLA/821/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRLA No. 821 of 2026, Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench, Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra J., decided March 25, 2026. Keywords: Section 173(4) BNSS; Special Judge SC/ST Act Sitapur; Criminal Misc. Application No. 08 of 2026; cognizable offence; police investigation not essential; complaint in lieu of FIR; land dispute plot No. 26, 0.6970 hectare, Rangee; mutation; caste-indicative abuse; sections 170/126/135 BNSS action; appeal dismissed with liberty to file complaint.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the appellant to file a complaint before the learned court below; if filed, the complaint is to be dealt with strictly in accordance with law. ¶17

Radhe vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 7 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 821 of 2026

Radhe

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 7 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Appellant(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Satyendra Kumar Maurya : G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 27

¶10

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶12

The instant criminal appeal has been preferred against the order dated 27.02.2026 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 08 of 2026 by means of which learned court below has rejected the application under Section 173(4) BNSS.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant and cosharers had purchased a plot No. 26, having an area of 0.6970 hectare, from Rangee and its mutation has already been done in the revenue record in favor of the revisionist and co-sharers. The co-accused persons are the influential people and they were exerting pressure on the appellant and the co-sharers to sell the said plot to them. When the appellant and his co-sharers refused to accept the demand , they tried to cultivate the land forcefully and abused the revisionist and co-sharer and threatened them. No action was taken by the police in the matter. Therefore, an application under section 173 (4) of BNSS was filed before the court below with the allegation that the accused persons had insulted the appellant with casteindicative words. The court below has dismissed the application on placing reliance on the report of the police station that the dispute occurred between the parties regarding the land and harvesting the crop and action was taken in the matter under section 170/126/ 135 BNSS.

¶14

CRLA No. 821 of 2026

¶15

¶16

I find no substantial error in the order passed by the court below, whereby the application under section 173 (4) BNSS has been dismissed. However, as the accused and witnesses are known, the matter is not of such nature that the investigation by police is essential on the facts of the case. However, I find some force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that a cognizable offense is made out in this case against the private respondents on the facts of the case.

¶17

The appeal stands dismissed with liberty to the appellant to file a complaint before the learned court below. If such a complaint is filed, the same will be dealt strictly in accordance with law.

¶18

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶19

March 25, 2026 dk/

¶20

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

Radhe v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhe v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 7 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

Jaichand Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Imran Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 5 Others

Ravi @ Ravi Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

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