AMIT KUMAR VISHWAKARMA AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10826 of 2025

Amit Kumar Vishwakarma And 3 Others
                                                             .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                           .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)         : Ishwar Prasad Singh, Pradeep Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)        : G.A., Sunil Kumar Verma

Court No. - 51
                   HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

   1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri
      Sunil Kumar Verma, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, and
      the learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record.

   2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the prosecution is
      wholly false, motivated, and an abuse of the process of law, and that
      a plain reading of the First Information Report dated 29.09.2023
      demonstrates that specific allegations of assault are levelled only
      against appellant no. 1, Amit Kumar Vishwakarma, who is alleged
      to have caused injury on the head of the informant by means of an
      iron rod/hammer, while a vague and general allegation of
      exhortation is attributed to appellant no. 4, Usha Devi. It is further
      contended that no specific, distinct, or overt act has been assigned to
      appellant nos. 2 and 3, namely Guddu @ Pramila and Sarita, whose
      names have been merely mentioned in a casual and omnibus manner
      without any clear role in the alleged occurrence. Even as per the FIR
      version, the act of causing injury is confined to appellant no. 1 alone,
      and thus their implication appears to be due to exaggeration and
      prior enmity. It is argued that, in the absence of specific allegations,
      particularly in offences under the I.P.C. and the SC/ST Act,
      continuation of proceedings against appellant nos. 2 and 3 is legally
      unsustainable; however, the court below has failed to appreciate this
      material aspect and has mechanically taken cognizance against all
      the appellants, rendering the impugned order liable to be set aside to
      that extent.
                                                                                              CRLA No. 10826 of 2025
                                                                       2


                                          3. Learned A.G.A. prays for and is granted three weeks’ time to file a
                                             counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two
                                             weeks thereafter.

                                          4. List thereafter.

                                          5. Till the next date of listing, no coercive steps shall be taken against
                                             appellant nos. 2 and 3 (Guddu @ Pramila and Sarita) in pursuance of
                                             Criminal Case No. 916 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 311
                                             of 2023, under Sections 147, 308, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section
                                             3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and
                                             Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station
                                             Kotwali Nagar, District Basti.



                                                                                             (Madan Pal Singh,J.)
                                    April 22, 2026
                                    pks




Digitally signed by :-
PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad