Allahabad High Court
ANAND KUMAR AND 8 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The appeal is dismissed and the cognizance order of the Special Judge is upheld.
Summary
The appellants challenged a cognizance and summoning order dated 10‑12‑2025 issued by a Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in a criminal complaint alleging assault, property damage and other offences. The appellants argued that the complaint was false, motivated by a land dispute and that no independent witnesses were produced, seeking to set aside the order. The respondents contended that the complaint mirrored a civil suit filed by the same complainant, that the appellants had assaulted the complainant’s wife and damaged a construction site, and that the allegations were substantiated. The Court examined the pleadings, found that the allegations were prima facie supported by the civil suit and the FIR, and concluded that the trial court’s order was not infirm. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the cognizance order upheld.
Issues considered
- Whether the cognizance and summoning order under Section 14‑A(1) of the SC/ST Act should be set aside on the ground of false prosecution.
- Whether the allegations in the criminal complaint are prima facie false and unsupported by independent evidence.
- Whether the existence of a parallel civil suit corroborates the criminal allegations.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 323, 354, 427, 504, 506
- Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 14-A(1), 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(1)r, 3(1)s
Subjects
- SC/ST Act
- false prosecution
- land dispute
- criminal appeal
- cognizance order
- assault
- IPC offences
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1774 of 2026
Anand Kumar And 8 Others
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Adarsh Bind, Pramod Kumar Maurya,
Ram Soorat
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Surya Kant Dubey
Court No. - 51
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the
respondent no. 2 and learned A.G.A for the State as also perused the record.
2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred to allow
the appeal and set aside the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated
10.12.2025, passed by learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Bhadohi-
Gyanpur, in Criminal Complaint Case No. 148 of 2023 (Kalidas Pasi Versus
Anand Kumar and other), Under Sections-323, 504, 506, 427, 354 of I.P.C.,
& sections-3 (1) r, 3 (1) s of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Unj, District-
Bhadohi.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a false proceeding has
been instituted against him by the respondent-complainant, who is habitually
lodging false prosecutions against him. There is a land dispute between the
parties, for which a civil suit, O.S. No. 1113 of 2023 (Ramjag and others vs.
Anand Kumar and others), was instituted by a family member of the
complainant. Another FIR was also lodged against the appellant in Case
Crime No. 107 of 2023, under Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) of the SC/ST Act
and Sections 504, 323, 147 IPC. The intention of the respondent is to exert
pressure upon the appellants by filing multiple prosecutions. The allegations
in the complaint are false and fictitious. The allegations are not supported by
any independent witnesses. No independent witness was produced by the
complainant during the proceedings. Hence, the impugned order taking
cognizance against the appellant is liable to be set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA submitted that the
CRLA No. 1774 of 2026
2
version of the complaint as well as the civil suit filed by the respondent-
informant are identical, which further fortifies the claim of the prosecution.
The wife of the informant was beaten twice by the appellants. The appellants
are continuously interfering with the peaceful possession of the respondent.
Hence, the impugned order taking cognizance against the appellants does not
suffer from any infirmity.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The
allegation in the complaint case is that the appellants arrived at the
construction site of the respondent and started assaulting them. They also
demolished the pillars and plinth of the under construction house. Similar
allegations have been averred in the civil suit filed by the respondent. The
allegations in the complaint as well as in the civil suit demonstrate that a
land dispute exists between the parties. Hence, the allegations prima facie
are not liable to be discarded. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the
learned trial court is accordingly upheld.
6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
March 19, 2026
Ujjawal
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
UJJAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…