ARVINDversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6176 of 2024

Arvind
                                                              .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
                                                            .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)           :   Ajai Kumar, Krishna Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)          :   G.A., Manju Yadav

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for opposite party
nos.2 to 6 and learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14A(1) of S.C. & S.T.
Act by the appellants challenging the impugned order dated 30.05.2024
passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge S.C.& S.T.
Act, Hapur in Complaint Case No.01 of 2024 arising out an application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., P.S. Babugarh, District Hapur whereby
complaint of the appellant has been rejected.

3. Tersely, as per the prosecution case, the appellant moved an application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., alleging that on 23.11.2023 at about 7:00 p.m.,
opposite party no.3 Manoj entered his house and allegedly misbehaved with
his wife and made obscene gestures towards her. On her raising an alarm,
the appellant and his family members reached the spot. Thereafter, the other
accused persons, armed with lathis and sticks, allegedly entered the house
and assaulted the appellant and his family members. During the incident,
opposite party no.6 Shivam sustained an injury after falling and hitting his
head against the wall. The accused persons-opposite party nos.2 to 6
allegedly fled from the spot after extending threats to kill the appellant.

4. Briefly, the grounds of the appeal are that the impugned order dated
30.05.2024 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge
S.C.& S.T. Act, Hapur 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.
                                                          CRLA No. 6176 of 2024
                                 2


5. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the learned
court below has erred in dismissing the complaint without properly
appreciating the allegations made in the application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. and the statements of the complainant and the witnesses recorded
under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. It was contended that the statements of
the complainant and the witnesses consistently disclosed that opposite party
nos. 2 to 6 had unlawfully entered the house of the appellant armed with
lathi, danda and balkati and had assaulted and intimidated the members of
the complainant's family. It was further submitted that the allegation
regarding the attempt to molest the wife of the informant by opposite party
nos. 3 and 4 was specifically made and was also supported by the material
available on record. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that,
at the stage of taking cognizance/summoning, the court is required to
examine whether a prima facie case is disclosed from the complaint and the
statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and is not required
to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence as would be undertaken at
the stage of trial. The mere absence of a medical or injury report, particularly
when the principal allegations relate to unlawful entry, assault, intimidation
and an attempt to molest, could not by itself constitute a sufficient ground
for dismissal of the complaint. It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned
order dated 30.05.2024 suffers from an error of law and fact and is liable to
be set aside.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties no.2 to 6 and learned
A.G.A. for the State supported the impugned order and submitted that the
learned court below had rightly dismissed the complaint after considering
the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. It was
contended that the allegations made in the application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. were not supported by any independent or reliable material.
Although the appellant and the witnesses alleged that opposite party nos. 2
to 6 were armed with lathi, danda and balkati and that an occurrence
involving physical assault had taken place, neither any specific injury nor the
identity of the person allegedly injured was disclosed in the complaint or in
the statements recorded during inquiry. No medical examination report or
injury report was produced in support of the allegation. Learned counsel for
the opposite parties further submitted that, in respect of the very same
incident, Case Crime No. 355 of 2023 had already been registered by Manoj,
opposite party no. 3, against Arvind, the appellant, and others. According to
                                                          CRLA No. 6176 of 2024
                                 3


the opposite parties, the subsequent institution of the present complaint was
therefore a counterblast to the aforesaid criminal case and was actuated by
an ulterior motive. It was argued that the allegations in the complaint were
an afterthought and had been deliberately introduced to create a defence in
the earlier criminal case. Thus, in the absence of any corroborative medical
or other independent evidence and having regard to the existence of the
earlier case arising out of the same occurrence, the learned court below
committed no error in dismissing the complaint.

7. An application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the
appellant/complainant, which was treated as a complaint case. During the
course of the inquiry, the statement of the complainant under Section 200
Cr.P.C. and the statements of the victim/witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C.
were recorded. Thereafter, the complaint came to be dismissed by the
impugned order dated 30.05.2024. The allegation contained in the
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was that opposite party nos.3 and 4
had attempted to molest the wife of the informant and that opposite party
nos. 2 to 6 had entered the house of the appellant. It was further alleged that,
during the ensuing scuffle, opposite party no. 6, namely Shivam, fell down
and sustained injuries. Further more in their statements recorded under
Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the appellant/complainant and the witnesses
stated that opposite party nos. 2 to 6 had entered the appellant's house armed
with hard and blunt objects, namely lathi, danda and balkati. However,
neither in the complaint nor in the statements of the appellant/complainant
and the witnesses was any specific injury sustained by any person disclosed.
Moreover, no medical report or injury report was placed on record to
substantiate the allegation that any injury had actually been caused in the
alleged occurrence.

8. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds
no illegality, perversity or infirmity in the impugned order dated 30.05.2024
passed by the learned court below. Although allegations have been made
regarding the attempted molestation of the wife of the appellant and the
alleged entry of opposite party nos. 2 to 6 into the house of the appellant
while armed with lathi, danda and balkati, the allegations are not supported
by any specific or cogent particulars regarding the injuries allegedly
sustained during the occurrence. Significantly, neither the complaint nor the
statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. disclose any
                                                                                              CRLA No. 6176 of 2024
                                                                     4

                                    specific injury sustained by any person, nor has any medical or injury report
                                    been brought on record in support of the allegation.
                                    9. The learned court below, after considering the complaint and the
                                    statements of the complainant and the witnesses recorded during the inquiry,
                                    has rightly found that the material placed before it did not disclose sufficient
                                    grounds for proceeding against the opposite parties. The existence of an
                                    earlier criminal case arising out of the same occurrence also lends support to
                                    the submission of the opposite parties that the present complaint was
                                    instituted as a counterblast. In the circumstances, this Court finds no ground
                                    to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the learned court below.
                                    10. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is devoid of merit and is, hereby,
                                    dismissed. The impugned order dated 30.05.2024 is affirmed.

                                    September 9, 2026
                                    Asha
                                                                                                  (Santosh Rai,J.)




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