Disposed¶14

Rohit Kashyap v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Mar 2026CRLA/825/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SC/ST Act Section 14-A(1) appeal; summoning order challenge; Sessions Case No.153 of 2026, Gonda; Case Crime No.302 of 2025; Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS; Section 3(1)(da), (dha) SC/ST Act; PS Dhanepur; FIR on court-ordered application under Section 173(4) BNSS; false implication; no specific role in FIR; Gram Pradhan Rakesh Kumar Yadav; compromise in land dispute; appeal admitted; notice through CJM; listed 20.04.2026; Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.

What did the court decide?

Appeal admitted; notice to respondent no.2 through the C.J.M. concerned, returnable at an early date; steps within a week; appeal listed on 20.04.2026 as fresh. No substantive relief granted at this stage. ¶14

Rohit Kashyap vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned trial court committed manifest error in summoning the appellant when, according to the appellant, no offence as alleged is made out against him, no specific role was assigned to him in the FIR, he has no connection with accused Rakesh Kumar Yadav (Gram Pradhan), and a compromise was already effected between him and respondent no.2 in the underlying land dispute.

¶13

Key takeaways

The criminal appeal is admitted.¶14
Notice is to issue to respondent no.2, to be served through the C.J.M. concerned, returnable at an early date.¶15
Steps for service are to be taken within a week and the appeal is to be listed on 20.04.2026 as fresh.¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.), Criminal Appeal No. 825 of 2026 (decided 26.03.2026): Criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the S.C./S.T. Act by Rohit Kashyap against the judgment and order dated 17.01.2026 of the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Gonda in Sessions Case No.153 of 2026, arising out of Case Crime No.302 of 2025 under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS and Section 3(1)(da), (dha) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Dhanepur, District Gonda. Appellant's counsel submitted that his name was falsely added in the FIR lodged at the instance of respondent no.2 on a court-ordered application under Section 173(4) BNSS, that no offence as alleged was made out against him, that no specific role was assigned to him in the FIR, that he had nothing to do with accused Rakesh Kumar Yadav, Gram Pradhan, and that a compromise had already been effected between him and respondent no.2 in the land dispute. The Court admitted the appeal, directed notice to respondent no.2 through the C.J.M. concerned returnable at an early date, steps within a week, and listed the matter on 20.04.2026 as fresh. No merits finding was recorded at this stage.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 825 of 2026

Rohit Kashyap

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Geeta	Mishra,	Ambrish	Kumar
	Dwivedi,	Pragya
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: 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

Instant criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the S.C./S.T. Act has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 17.01.2026 passed by learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Gonda in Sessions Case No.153 of 2026, arising out of Case Crime No.302 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS & Section 3(1)(da), (dha) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Dhanepur, District Gonda.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the name of the appellant has been falsely added in the FIR, which was lodged at the instance of respondent no.2 on orders of the court passed on his application under Section 173(4) BNSS. No offence as alleged is made out against the appellant. The learned trial court has committed manifest error in summoning the appellant. No specific role has been assigned to the appellant in the FIR. He has nothing to do with accused Rakesh Kumar Yadav, Gram Pradhan. A compromise was already affected between the appellant and respondent no.2 in regard to the land dispute.

¶14