LATA DOHAREversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 11 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3935 of 2026

Lata Dohare
                                                             .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus
State Of U.P. And 11 Others
                                                           .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)        : Rahul Chaudhary
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : Atul Pal, G.A., Pankaj Kumar Ojha,
                                  Vivek Singh

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

1. Heard Sri Rahul Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Pankaj
Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 to 8, 11 and 12,Ms.
Monika Pal, advocate holding brief of Sri Atul Pal, learned counsel for
opposite party Nos.9 and 10, and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused
the record.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14A(1) of S.C. & S.T.
Act by the appellant challenging the impugned judgment and order dated
19.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Auraiya
in Misc. Case No. 50 of 2025 (Lata Dohare Vs. Vipin & Others) under
Section 173(4) of the B.N.S.S. whereby the complaint has been rejected.

3. Tersely, the prosecution case, as set out in the application under Section
173(4) BNSS, is that the appellant's son Nitin and Sapna Yadav were in a
love relationship and had left their respective homes with mutual consent,
due to which the opposite parties bore enmity towards the applicant and her
family. It is alleged that on 21.10.2024 at about 8:30 a.m., the opposite
parties, namely Vipin and others, along with some unknown persons,
forcibly entered the appellant's house, abused and assaulted her and
attempted to commit rape. It is further alleged that some of the accused
forcibly took away the appellant's ornaments and cash amounting to Rs.5
lakh and Rs.10 lakh, while other accused unknown persons allegedly looted
six buffaloes, twenty goats and two cows after assaulting the applicant.

4. Briefly, the grounds of the appeal are that the impugned judgment and
order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.)
                                                          CRLA No. 3935 of 2026
                                 2


Act, Auraiya is wholly illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The
impugned order is based on surmises and conjunctures as such same is liable
to be quashed.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant-complainant submits that the
Special Court erred in rejecting the complaint under Section 226 BNSS, as
the allegations disclosed commission of cognizable and serious offences,
including forcible entry into the house, causing injuries, attempt to commit
rape, theft/robbery of cash and ornaments. At the stage of consideration of
the complaint, the court was required to examine whether there was
sufficient ground for proceeding, and it was not expected to conduct a
meticulous appreciation of the evidence as would be done at the stage of
trial. The statements of the complainant and witnesses recorded during the
inquiry constituted material requiring consideration, and merely because
there were certain discrepancies or omissions, the complaint ought not to
have been rejected at the threshold. It is further submitted that the
contradiction concerning the date of occurrence dated 21.10.2024 in the
application under Section 173(4) BNSS and 21.10.2023 in the
appellant/complainant's statement was at best a discrepancy which could
have been clarified during trial and was not sufficient by itself to discard the
entire prosecution version. It is next submitted that the absence of a medical
or injury report, particularly where the complainant stated that no such report
had been prepared, cannot by itself demolish her allegation of assault or
injuries. The occurrence may be proved through oral testimony and other
surrounding circumstances.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite parties and learned A.G.A. for the State
vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and
submitted that the allegations in the complaint were not corroborated by the
statements recorded during inquiry or by any independent documentary or
material evidence. Although the appellant-complainant alleged forcible
entry, assault, attempted rape, theft of substantial amounts of cash and
ornaments, and removal of numerous livestock, there was no reliable
material produced in support of these allegations. The complainant alleged
that she had suffered injuries, but in her statement recorded under Section
200 Cr.P.C./Section 223 BNSS she stated that no medical or injury report
had been prepared. This materially weakened the allegation of assault and
injuries. It is further submitted that the application under Section 173(4)
BNSS specifically stated that the incident occurred on 21.10.2024 at about
                                                          CRLA No. 3935 of 2026
                                3


8:30 a.m., whereas the appellant- complainant subsequently stated that the
occurrence took place on 21.10.2023. The parties were admittedly involved
in criminal litigation, and a case under Section 376 IPC read with the
POCSO Act had already been registered against the appellant's son. This
provided a strong background for false implication. The opposite parties
may submit that the present complaint was instituted to exert pressure upon
them and to create a counter-case in retaliation for the criminal proceedings
pending against the appellant's son. It is further argued that the impugned
order dated 19.01.2026 is based on proper consideration of the complaint,
statements and surrounding circumstances and does not suffer from
perversity or illegality warranting appellate interference.

7. The appellant-complainant, Lata Dohare, moved an application under
Section 173(4) BNSS against Vipin, Sher Singh, Ganesh Singh, Sunil
Kumar, Saurabh Singh, Prahlad Singh, Sugendra Singh, Santosh, Sudheesh,
Ashok Kumar, Bharat Singh and four unknown persons. The application was
treated as a complaint after recording the statements of the complainant and
witnesses. The Special Court rejected the complaint under Section 226
BNSS vide impugned order dated 19.01.2026. The court found that although
allegations were made regarding forcible entry into the house, causing
injuries, an attempt to commit rape, removal of Rs.5 lakh and Rs.10 lakh and
ornaments, and looting of six buffaloes, twenty goats and two cows but the
allegations were not supported by the statements recorded during the inquiry
or by any material evidence. The complainant's assertion regarding
sustaining injuries was also found contradictory, as she stated in her
statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C./223 B.N.S.S. that no medical
or injury report had been prepared. There was also a material contradiction
regarding the date of occurrence. The application under Section 173(4)
BNSS mentioned the incident as having occurred on 21.10.2024 at 8:30
a.m., whereas in her statement the appellant-complainant stated that the
incident occurred on 21.10.2023. The parties admittedly had criminal
rivalry, and a criminal case under Section 376 IPC read with the POCSO Act
had been registered against the son of the appellant. In these circumstances,
the court found substance in the view that the present complaint had been
instituted as a counterblast to exert pressure in the earlier criminal case and
with an ulterior motive.

8. Accordingly, in view of the material contradictions in the appellant-
complainant's version, the absence of supporting medical or other material
                                                                                             CRLA No. 3935 of 2026
                                                                    4


                                    evidence, the discrepancy regarding the date of occurrence, and the admitted
                                    criminal rivalry between the parties, the finding of the learned Special Court
                                    that the complaint was instituted as a counterblast to the earlier criminal
                                    proceedings and with an ulterior motive cannot be said to be perverse or
                                    contrary to the material on record. No ground is made out for interference
                                    with the impugned order dated 19.01.2026.

                                    9. Consequently, the criminal appeal is dismissed. The impugned order
                                    dated 19.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Court rejecting the
                                    complaint under Section 226 of the BNSS is hereby affirmed.

                                    September 8, 2026
                                    Asha
                                                                                                (Santosh Rai,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
ASHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad