MANORAMA KUSHWAHAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2175 of 2025

Manorama Kushwaha
                                                           .....Appellant(s)
                                  Versus

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

Counsel for Appellant(s)       : Kumar Ashutosh Srivastava, Nagendra
                                 Bahadur Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)      : G.A., Harendra Pal, Prashant Pratap
                                 Rao, Rajiv Chowdhury

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

1. Heard Shri Kumar Ashutosh Srivastava, learned counsel for the
appellant, learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and learned AGA for the State.

2. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant with a
prayer to set aside the summoning order dated 06.09.2022 passed by
Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Deoria as well as the entire proceedings in
S.S.T. No.388 of 2022 (State of U.P. vs. Ashok Kumar Kushwaha and
others) arising out of Case Crime No.339 of 2022 under Sections 406, 504
and 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Deoria. He
further prays to stay the proceedings in the aforesaid case.

3. The accused-appellant, Manorama Kushwaha, is named in the FIR
along with three other accused persons, namely, Ashok Kumar
Kushwaha, Shiv Mangal Gond and Sumitra Devi. The accused-appellant
Manorama Kushwaha is the legally wedded wife of co-accused Ashok
Kumar Kushwaha. It has specifically been alleged in the FIR that the
complainant/victim had paid a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- on the false promise
made by co-accused Ashok Kumar Kushwaha regarding the sale of the
disputed plot bearing Arazi No. 398.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is the wife
of co-accused Ashok Kumar Kushwaha and has been falsely implicated in
the present case. The dispute essentially relates to the proposed sale of
land between the informant and co-accused Shiv Mangal Gond, in which
                                                        CRLA No. 2175 of 2025
                               2


the appellant had no role. It is submitted that the entire sale consideration
was returned to the informant through a bank transaction and, therefore,
the allegation of misappropriation or cheating is not substantiated against
the appellant. It is further submitted that the appellant is a housewife and
there is no specific overt act attributed to her. The Investigating Officer,
without proper investigation, submitted the charge-sheet, and the learned
Trial Court mechanically took cognizance and summoned the appellant
without properly examining the material on record. Hence, the
summoning order dated 06.09.2022 and consequential proceedings
deserve to be set aside.

5. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. submit that
the F.I.R. was lodged pursuant to an application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the allegations disclose commission of the
offences under Sections 406, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of
the SC/ST Act. After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against
the appellant and other accused persons, upon which cognizance was
taken and the appellant was summoned. The defence taken by the
appellant regarding the nature of the land transaction and return of money
involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot appropriately be
adjudicated at this stage. Therefore, the challenge to the summoning order
is liable to be considered in light of the material collected during
investigation.

6. It has been specifically stated in the FIR that the Rs.8,50,000/- was
deposited in Account No. 31710110027882 maintained with UCO Bank.
As per the instructions received on behalf of the learned A.G.A., the
aforesaid bank account is in the name of the accused-appellant Manorama
Kushwaha, who is the legally wedded wife of co-accused Ashok Kumar
Kushwaha. From a perusal of the case diary and the material available on
record, it prima facie appears that the accused-appellant Manorama
Kushwaha was the beneficiary of the aforesaid transaction.

7. Cognizance has been taken under Sections 406, 504 and 506 IPC and
Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act. Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is extracted
below to ready reference:
                                                                CRLA No. 2175 of 2025
                                     3


     "3. Punishments for offence of atrocities.-........
     (2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
     Tribe,-..........

             "(v) commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of
             1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years
             or more against a person or property [knowing that such
             person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
             Tribe or such property belongs to such member], shall be
             punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine;"

8. In the present case, the maximum punishment prescribed for the
offences with which the accused-appellant has been charged is less than
ten years. Furthermore, from a perusal of the FIR itself, it appears that the
dispute essentially arises out of a financial transaction concerning the sale
of the disputed property and has the complexion of a civil dispute
between the parties. There is also no reliable material on record, at this
stage, to establish that the alleged occurrence took place solely on account
of the victim belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe category.

9. Accordingly, having bestowed anxious consideration to the rival
submissions and upon a careful scrutiny of the entire material available on
record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has
failed to disclose even a prima facie case attracting the provisions of
Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

10. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the essential ingredients constituting the offence under
Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act are conspicuously absent from the
material collected during investigation, and the continuance of
proceedings for the said offences would amount to an abuse of the process
of law. Consequently, the appeal under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act
succeeds in part.

11. Consequently, the summoning order dated 06.09.2022 passed by
Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Deoria in S.S.T. No.388 of 2022 (State of U.P.
vs. Ashok Kumar Kushwaha and others) arising out of Case Crime
                                                                                             CRLA No. 2175 of 2025
                                                                    4


                                    No.339 of 2022 under Sections 406, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(v)
                                    of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
                                    Act, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Deoria, is modified to the extent that the
                                    appellant stands discharged of the offences punishable under Sections
                                    3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

                                    12. However, sufficient material is available on record to proceed against
                                    the appellant under the provisions of IPC. Accordingly, the proceedings
                                    against the appellant under the provisions of Sections 406, 504 and 506
                                    IPC shall continue and be concluded expeditiously in accordance with
                                    law. The trial court shall proceed uninfluenced by any observation made
                                    herein on the merits of the case.

                                    13. With the above observation, the appeal is partly allowed.

                                    14. The appellant is directed to appear before the court concerned and
                                    move bail application, within two weeks from today. It is made clear that
                                    no application seeking extension of the aforesaid period shall be
                                    entertained by this court.

                                    15. In case, the appellant moves bail application before the court
                                    concerned, the same shall be considered and decided by the trial court
                                    expeditiously and preferably on the same day, in light of principles laid
                                    down by the Supreme Court as well as this Court regarding surrender and
                                    bail.

                                    16. In case, the appellant fails to appear before the court concerned within
                                    the stipulated period, the trial court will be at liberty to adopt appropriate
                                    coercive proceedings, in accordance with law, for securing the presence
                                    of the appellant.

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



                                                                                                (Santosh Rai,J.)
                                    October 1, 2026
                                    Ankit.




Digitally signed by :-
ANKIT VISHWAKARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad