MOHIT YADAV AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                    CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1767 of 2026

Mohit Yadav And Another
                                                                .....Appellant(s)
                                     Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                              .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)              :   Phool Singh Yadav, Vaibhav Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)             :   G.A.

Court No. - 51
                            HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1. The case was called out in the revised call list. None appeared
on behalf of opposite party no. 2. As per the office report, notice has
been duly served upon opposite party no. 2; however, none has
appeared on its behalf to contest the appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R.K. Singh, learned
AGA for the State.
3.    The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellants against the impugned
cognizance / summoning order dated 21.4.2022 passed by the
learned IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge
(S.C./S.T.), Kanpur Dehat in Special Case No 215 of 2019 (Smt.
Neelam Devi VS Mohit Yadav & Others), under Section 323, 452,
354, 504, 506 IPC & 3(1)(r) 3(1)(s) & 3(1)(b)(ii) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, at Police Station Bhognipur,
District- Kanpur Dehat.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the
respondent/complainant has alleged in her complaint that her
daughter was molested by appellant no.1. All the witnesses have
stated that the incident occurred inside the house of the
respondent/complainant. It has further been alleged that when the
complainant went to the house of appellant no.1 to lodge her
objections against his conduct, his father, appellant no. 2, abused and
assaulted them.
5. The first incident occurred within the house of the informant,
whereas there is no mention regarding the place of occurrence of the
                                                                                       CRLA No. 1767 of 2026
                                                                 2

                                    second incident, which allegedly took place at the house of the
                                    appellants. Hence, the impugned order summoning the appellants for
                                    the offence under Section 3(1)(s) is unsustainable. It was further
                                    submitted that the appellants have been falsely implicated due to
                                    ulterior motives. The entire proceedings against the appellants are
                                    actuated with mala fide intent and are liable to be set aside.

                                    6. Sri R.K. Singh, learned AGA, has submitted that appellant no.1
                                    entered the house of the respondent/complainant and, finding her
                                    daughter alone, molested her. The victim belongs to the SC/ST
                                    community and is also physically handicapped. Hence, the impugned
                                    order summoning the appellants does not warrant any interference.

                                    7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the complaint,
                                    as well as the statements of the complainant and her witnesses.

                                    8. Admittedly, the alleged molestation took place inside the house
                                    of the informant. Hence, the offence against the appellants under
                                    Section 3(1)(s) is not made out. So far as the allegation of abuse and
                                    assault by appellant no. 2 is concerned, none of the witnesses have
                                    disclosed the place of occurrence where the alleged incident took
                                    place. Hence, no offence against appellant no. 2 under Section
                                    3(1)(s) is made out.
                                    9. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The ognizance /
                                    summoning order dated 21.4.2022 ,Special Case No 215 of 2019 ,
                                    insofar as they relate to offences Section 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act, are
                                    hereby quashed. However, the proceedings in respect of the
                                    remaining offences under Sections 323, 452, 354, 504, 506 IPC &
                                    3(1)(r) & 3(1)(w)(ii) of SC/ST Act shall continue in accordance with
                                    law.
                                    March 19, 2026
                                    Mukesh
                                                                                         (Anil Kumar-X,J.)




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