Allahabad High Court
SMT RUBYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MADAN PAL SINGH
Holding
An appeal under Section 14A(1) is not maintainable; the proper remedy is to file a complaint under Section 190/200, and where such a complaint is already pending, the order rejecting the Section 173(4) application stands.
Summary
The appellant, Smt. Ruby, filed a criminal appeal under Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, seeking to set aside a Special Judge’s order rejecting her application under Section 173(4) of the BNSS. The High Court noted that the same facts were already the subject of a complaint pending before the trial court under Section 190(1)(b) read with Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 210(1)(b) read with Section 223 of the BNSS). Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Aleque Padamsee v. Union of India and the Allahabad High Court’s Full Bench ruling in Father Thomas v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court held that a rejected Section 173(4) application must be pursued by filing a complaint, not by an appeal. Since the appropriate complaint was already pending, the appellant had exhausted the statutory remedy. Consequently, the Court found no ground for interference and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether an appeal under Section 14A(1) of the SC/ST Act is maintainable against the order rejecting an application under Section 173(4) of the BNSS when a complaint under Section 190/200 is already pending.
- The correct statutory remedy for a rejected application under Section 173(4) of the BNSS.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 173(4), 210(1)(b), 223
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 156(3), 190(1)(b), 200
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14A(1)
Subjects
- SC/ST Act
- Section 14A
- Section 173(4)
- Section 190
- Section 200
- appeal
- complaint
- criminal procedure
- pending case
- jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10797 of 2025
Smt Ruby
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Avinash Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Santosh Kumar Shukla
Court No. - 51
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
1. Case called out in the revised list. None appeared on behalf of the
appellant to press the present appeal. Shri Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned
counsel for opposite party no. 2, and the learned AGA for the State are
present.
2. By means of the present criminal appeal under Section 14A(1) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
, the appellant seeks to set aside the order dated 10.10.2025 passed by the
Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Saharanpur, whereby the application filed by the
appellant under Section 173(4) of the BNSS has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has drawn attention to the
impugned order, wherein it is recorded that Complaint Case No. 2270 of
2025 (Sanjeev Kumar vs. Mangeram & Others) is already pending before the
trial court on the same set of facts.
4. Relying upon the Three Judges Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the Case of Aleque Padamsee v. Union of India (AIR 2007 SC
684), the Full Bench of this Court in Father Thomas v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, passed in Criminal Revision No. 1640 of 2001 decided on
22.12.2010 has held that even an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
(now Section 173(4) BNSS) has been rejected, the remedy available to the
appellant is to file a complaint case before the court concerned under Section
190 (1) (b) read with Section 200 of Cr.P.C. (now Section 210(1)(b) read
with Section 223 of BNSS.)
5. In the present case, it is not disputed that a complaint case on the same
facts is already pending before the trial court, meaning thereby that the
appellant has already availed the appropriate remedy in light of the judgment
of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Father Thomas (supra).
CRLA No. 10797 of 2025
2
6. In view of the above facts and settled legal position, no interference is
warranted in the impugned order passed by the trial court.
7. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is dismissed.
April 2, 2026
Akbar
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MOHAMMAD AKBAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…