Allahabad High Court
ANIL KUMAR DUBEYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The appeal is allowed and the proceedings against the appellant are set aside.
Summary
The appellant, Anil Kumar Dubey, was charged under Section 14‑A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for allegedly threatening a woman who claimed to be his brother's first wife and for using casteist slurs. The FIR alleged that the appellant, together with his brother Ratnesh Kumar Dubey and the brother's second wife, confronted the informant and threatened her after she objected to the brother’s second marriage. The appellant contended that no marriage existed between his brother and the informant, that he had no knowledge of any affair, and that the case was filed out of vendetta, amounting to an abuse of process. The State argued that the informant’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the B.N.S. supported the allegation of intimidation and casteist abuse. The High Court, after reviewing the FIR and the informant’s statements, found that the only specific allegation against the appellant was the threat and casteist slur, with no substantive evidence linking him to the alleged marriage dispute. Consequently, the Court set aside the proceedings against the appellant and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant can be held liable under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for alleged threats and casteist slurs.
- Whether the evidence on record is sufficient to sustain the charge against the appellant.
- Whether the proceedings constitute an abuse of the process of law.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 180, 183
- Indian Penal Code — s. 191(2), 351(3), 352
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(DA), 3(1)(DHA), 3(2)(VA)
Subjects
- SC/ST Act
- caste discrimination
- criminal intimidation
- false implication
- abuse of process
- marriage dispute
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1745 of 2026
Anil Kumar Dubey
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Devendra Kumar Patel
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Mahendra Tripathi, Parvat Singh
Court No. - 51
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for appellant, learned counsel for respondent /
informant and Sri Amrit Raj Chaurasiya, learned AGA for State.
2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has been
filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 13.01.2026
passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST Act., Mirzapur as well as the charge-
sheet dated 10.10.2025 In Special Session Trial No. 57 of 2026 (State Vs
Ratnesh Kumar Dubey and Others) arising out of Case Crime no. 238 of
2025, Under Section 191(2), 352, 351(3) of B.N.S. and 3(1)(DA)
3(1)(DHA), 3(2)(VA) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Katra, District
Mirzapur, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act,
Mirzapur.
3. Briefly stated, the allegation in the FIR is that accused Ratnesh Kumar
Dubey had earlier married the respondent/informant at a temple in Surat.
However, thereafter, he solemnized his marriage with Pooja Dubey. The
respondent/informant alleged that when she came to know about the said
marriage, she went to the house of accused Ratnesh Kumar Dubey. There,
she was confronted by accused Ratnesh Kumar Dubey, his elder brother
appellant Anil Kumar Dubey, and his wife Pooja Dubey. It is alleged that
when she opposed the marriage of accused Ratnesh Kumar Dubey with the
appellant, the accused persons, along with the appellant, threatened her and
used casteist slurs against her.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the allegation of his
brother meeting the respondent/informant in the hospital, falling in love and
thereafter marrying her is false and no evidence has been led in support of
such marriage. Further he has no concern with the informant and was not
CRLA No. 1745 of 2026
2
even aware of any alleged affair between his brother and the informant.
Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant has been falsely
implicated due to vendetta on the part of the respondent/informant against
accused Ratnesh Kumar Dubey. Hence, the proceedings against the
appellant amount to an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, the impugned
order passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside.
5. Sri Amrit Raj Chaurasia, learned AGA for the State, and learned counsel
for the informant have submitted that the earlier marriage between the
respondent/informant and accused Ratnesh Kumar Dubey was solemnized in
a temple at Surat. Thereafter, the second marriage of the accused Ratnesh
Kumar Dubey was solemnized. When the respondent/informant went to
enquire from accused Ratnesh Kumar Dubey about his second marriage, she
was abused and threatened by the appellant and other co-accused persons,
who also used casteist slurs against her.
6. From the perusal of the FIR as well as the statements of the informant
recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, it transpires that the only
specific allegation against the appellant is that he threatened the informant
and used casteist slurs. It appears that the informant, being enraged upon
learning of the subsequent marriage of the appellant with Ratnesh Kumar
Dubey, lodged the FIR against the appellant in order to take revenge against
accused Ratnesh Kumar Dubey and his family members.
7. In view of the above, the entire proceedings qua the appellant, Anil
Kumar Dubey, are hereby set aside.
8. Accordingly the appeal is allowed.
March 19, 2026
Ujjawal
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
UJJAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…