GEETA DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

              HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                    CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 11528 of 2024

Geeta Devi
                                                                  .....Appellant(s)
                                    Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)                            :       Balram Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)                           :       G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. for the
State. Despite the fact that notice has been issued to opposite party no.2 as
per office report dated 15th April, 2026, today when the matter is taken up in
the revised list, no one appears for opposite party no.2.

2. The present appeal under Section 14A (1) of S.C./S.T. Act has been filed
with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 16th October, 2024 passed
by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Sant Kabir Nagar in Complaint Case No.
50 of 2023 (Geeta Devi Vs. Buddhu @ Nageshwar & Others), whereby the
trial court has rejected the complaint of the appellant under Section 203
Cr.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that initially, the appellant has
filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., which has been treated as
the instant complaint case. He further submits that in the statements recorded
under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C. the complainant and her two
witnesses have supported the version as unfolded in the instant complaint i.e.
in application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. However, the trial court while
passing the impugned order has rejected the complaint of the appellant on the
ground that since a civil suit is pending between the parties and by means of
the present complaint case, the appellant has tried to give the civil case into
colour of criminality.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the trial court has not
considered the material or evidence adduced by the appellant and has passed
the impugned order in mechanical and cursory manner. Deep scrutiny of the
evidence is not required to be seen. Only a prima facie case has to be seen by
the evidence adduced by the complainant/appellant and her witnesses. The
trial court has erred in law and on facts by rejecting the complaint of the
                                                           CRLA No. 11528 of 2024
                                  2

appellant, she has been denied the statutory protection and investigative
mechanism provided under the S.C./S.T. Act. The appellant being a
scheduled caste student is entitled to get protection of special legislation
enacted for the prevention of atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes.

5. On the above premise, learned counsel for the appellant urges that since
prima facie case is made out against the opposite party no.2 and the
impugned order cannot be said to be sustainable in the eyes of law and also is
arbitrary and illegal and also against the provisions of law, therefore, the same
is liable to be quashed.

6. Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the appellant. They further submits that the trial court has
not committed any illegality or infirmity while passing the impugned judgment
so as to warrant any interference by this appellate court. He further submits
that the case set up by the appellant in the complaint case is purely civil in
nature on the ground that a civil suit no. 95 of 2018 has been filed by the
appellant against his relative Surendra along others and on behalf of
Surendra, the third party i.e. opposite party no.2 is interfering on the land in
dispute for which the appellant has every right to file a civil suit as she may be
advised against the third party i.e. opposite party no.2 as well.

7. On the above premise, learned A.G.A. submits that the trial court while
passing the impugned order has not committed any error, therefore, the
present appeal be dismissed.

8. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the case set up
by the appellant by means of the present criminal appeal, the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A.
and perused the material available on record including the impugned order.

9. Before examining the correctness or otherwise of the impugned judgment
and order passed by the trial court, this Court has now come to the findings
recorded by the trial court in passing the impugned judgment and order.

10. After mentioning the facts as stated in the complaint and the statements
of the complainant and her witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the
trial court has recorded that the complainant has clearly mentioned in
paragraph 2 of the application under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. that qua
the land in dispute a civil suit no. 95 of 2018 is pending between the appellant
and her relative Surendra along with others before the Civil Judge (Junior
Division) Sant Kabir Nagar. In the said suit, it has been stated that the
                                                            CRLA No. 11528 of 2024
                                   3

possession has been taken over the said land illegally. In the application
under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. it has been mentioned that on 13.06.2023 at
about time 11:00 a.m. the disputed land was plowed. It has also been
mentioned that subsequently, on 18th June, 2023, an assault occurred, and
that a gold necklace from the appellant's neck and a bucket were taken away.
The appellant has also produced her two sons before the trial court as
witnesses but neither of them has mentioned that the accused, Buddha alias
Nageshwar Pandey, fired upon the appellant by a pistol.

11. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the trial court has opined that it
appears that the present case is civil in nature and by means of the same, an
attempt is being made to exaggerate it into a criminal one. In support of the
above finding, the trial court has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Indra Mohan Goswami v. State of
Uttaranchal, reported in AIR 2008 SC 251, wherein it has been held that
criminal proceedings should not be allowed to be filed to exert pressure in civil
cases. On the aforesaid settled legal position, the trial court has held that the
application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. appears to be exaggerated.
Therefore, summoning the accused, Buddha alias Nageshwar Pandey, does
not appear to be justified. The complaint of the complainant is liable to be
dismissed.

12. From perusal of the application filed by the appellant under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. which has been treated to be instant complaint case, it transpires that
qua the land which was mutated in the name of the appellant, a dispute is
going on between the appellant and her relative Surendra along with others
and because of the same, the appellant has filed a civil suit no.95 of 2018
against Surendra along with others, which is still pending consideration. In the
complaint itself, it has been alleged that the third party i.e. opposite party no.2,
namely, Buddhu @ Nageshwar Pandey has tried to plow and sow the land
which is in dispute between the appellant and her relative Surendra along with
others, for which the complainant i.e. the appellant has also remedy to file a
suit against third party i.e. opposite party no.2.

13. So far as the allegation made by the appellant that opposite party no.2 has
beaten up the appellant is concerned, there is no whisper of any medical
examination of the appellant being ever conducted, in the complaint as well as
in the statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., nor any injury
report in that regard has been brought on record.

14. So far as the allegation made by the appellant that on 18th June, 2023, the
opposite party no.2 has abused the appellant by using caste indicated words
is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that since the same has
                                                                                               CRLA No. 11528 of 2024
                                                                      4

                                    been done within the wall as per the vision as unfolded in the complaint case
                                    and also as per the statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., therefore,
                                    no prima facie case for the offence under the provisions of S.C./S.T. Act is
                                    made out against opposite party no.2.

                                    15. After having considered the submissions made at the bar and after going
                                    through the case law and the findings recorded by the trial court, I am of the
                                    view that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
                                    The trial court has rightly rejected the complaint case of the appellant. Hence,
                                    no interference is called for by this Court in the present criminal appeal.

                                    16. The present criminal appeal is devoid of merits and is, accordingly,
                                    dismissed.

                                    May 7, 2026
                                    Sushil/-
                                                                                               (Madan Pal Singh,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad