Allahabad High Court

SHAILESH KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 8 September 2026
Bench: SANTOSH RAI

Holding

The allegations do not disclose a cognizable offence, and the trial court's rejection of the Section 173(4) application is upheld.

Summary

The appellant, Shailesh Kumar, filed an application under Section 173(4) of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act alleging that his employer used abusive language and withheld wages, seeking criminal investigation. The trial court rejected the application, finding no cognizable offence. On appeal, the appellant argued that the police had failed to act and that the trial court had not properly considered the allegations. The respondent employer contended that the dispute arose from an employer‑employee relationship, citing alleged misappropriation of funds by the appellant and the absence of medical evidence. The High Court examined the facts and concluded that the allegations pertained merely to a civil employment dispute and did not disclose any cognizable offence. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court’s decision and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Do the allegations in the Section 173(4) application disclose a cognizable offence warranting criminal investigation?
Was the trial court justified in rejecting the application under Section 173(4)?
Is the dispute merely an employer‑employee matter falling outside the scope of criminal jurisdiction?

Legislation cited

Bihar Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act — s. 173(4)

Subjects

employer-employee dispute
cognizable offence
Section 173(4)
criminal procedure
appeal dismissed

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1404 of 2026

Shailesh Kumar
.....Appellant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Himanshu Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Amresh Bahadur Tiwari, G.A.

Court No. - 93
HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

1. Rejoinder affidavit filed, today in Court, on behalf of the appellant is
taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/applicant, learned counsel for
opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State.

3. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant/applicant
with a prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated
20.12.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kushinagar at Padrauna
in Criminal Misc. Case No.632 of 2025 (Shailesh Kumar vs. Anshul
Tibdewal), under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S., P.S.- Kotwali Padrauna,
District-Kushinagar, whereby the application of the appellant/applicant
under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. has been rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the allegations made in
the application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. disclose commission of
cognizable offences against opposite party no.2, who allegedly used
derogatory and abusive language against the appellant and refused to pay
his due wages. It is further submitted that the appellant had approached
the competent court only after the police failed to take appropriate action
on his complaint. The learned trial court, without properly appreciating
the allegations and material available on record, has mechanically rejected
the application. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is
unsustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside, with a
direction to proceed in accordance with law.
CRLA No. 1404 of 2026
2

5. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2, as well as learned AGA,
submits that the proceedings initiated by the appellant are nothing but an
outcome of an employer-employee dispute. It is submitted that the
appellant was working as an Assistant Manager in the resort of opposite
party no.2 and, during the course of his employment, had committed
misappropriation of money, on account of which his services were
terminated. Being aggrieved by his removal from service and the alleged
non-payment of wages, the appellant has falsely implicated opposite party
no.2 by making concocted allegations. It is further submitted that no
reliable medical evidence or injury report is available on record to
substantiate the allegations. The learned trial court, after considering the
entire facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly rejected the
application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. Accordingly, no interference is
warranted in the impugned order and the appeal is liable to be rejected.

6. In the application moved under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S., it has been
stated, and is also admitted, that the appellant was working as an Assistant
Manager in The Parth Resort, Basantpur, Suswaliya, Ramkola Road,
Padrauna, District Kushinagar, and that a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards
wages was due to opposite party no.2. It has further been stated that
opposite party no.2 is the owner of the aforesaid resort and that when the
appellant sought leave, opposite party no.2 became annoyed and allegedly
used derogatory words against him. As per the averments made in the
application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S., the alleged incident took place
at about 10:30 p.m. It is, therefore, apparent that there existed a
relationship of employer and employee between the appellant and
opposite party no.2 and that certain wages were allegedly due, as stated in
paragraph 5 of the application. It is further noteworthy that no reliable
medical evidence, including any injury report, is available on record in
support of the allegations. On the other hand, it has been stated on behalf
of opposite party no.2 that the appellant had committed misappropriation
of money during the course of his duties as Assistant Manager of the
resort, on account of which his services were terminated. It is alleged that,
being aggrieved by his removal from service, the appellant became
annoyed and initiated the proceedings in question before the trial court.
Upon consideration of the averments made in the application under
CRLA No. 1404 of 2026
3

Section 173(4) B.N.S.S., as well as the facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court finds that the dispute essentially arises out of an
employer-employee relationship. The allegations, on their face, do not
disclose the commission of any cognizable offence so as to warrant
interference in the present appeal. Accordingly, no prima facie case is
made out against opposite party no.2.

7. For the reasons recorded above, this Court finds that the learned trial
court has rightly rejected the application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. of
the appellant/applicant. The impugned order is well reasoned and does not
suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference in appellate
jurisdiction.

8. The instant appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.

9. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to serve a copy of this order by
FAX/e-mail to the court concerned through District & Sessions Judge
concerned within 48 hours.

(Santosh Rai,J.)
September 9, 2026
RA

Digitally signed by :-
RAZIQ ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…