MANNU VERMA AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7043 of 2026

Mannu Verma And 3 Others
                                                          .....Appellant(s)
                                 Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                        .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)      : Kaustubh Tewari, Sr. Advocate, Umesh
                                Chandra Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s)     : Arun Kumar Vishvakarma, G.A.

Court No. - 90
                    HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Kaustubh Tewari and Sri Umesh Chandra Shukla for the appellants,
learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2/complainant.

2. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred against the order dated
17.06.2026, passed by learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Agra in
Criminal Complaint Case No. 123 of 2023 (CNR No. UPAG
010108602023), 'Suman Vs. Ramu Verma & Others', under Sections 452,
354, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)10 of The Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station-Shahganj,
District-Agra, whereby the learned Trial Court was pleased to summon
accused appellant Nos. 1 & 2 for the offence punishable under Sections
452, 354, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)10 of The Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act,1989 and
accused appellant Nos. 3 & 4, for the offence punishable under Sections
452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)10 of The Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, exercising powers
under Section 204 Cr. P.C.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
accused/appellants and complainant are the native of same locality and
                                                        CRLA No. 7043 of 2026
                               2


their houses are located opposite to each other. The husband of
complainant namely Ajay alias Bhikari Valmiki is a hardened criminal.
He was sent to jail on 13.05.2008 in a murder case, registered vide Case
Crime No.124 of 2008 at Police Station-Shahganj, District Agra. In the
said criminal case, he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment
vide judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 22.12.2015
passed by learned Sessions Judge, Agra, in Sessions Trial No. 803 of
2008, for the offence punishable under Sections 302 & 506 I.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the
aforesaid order of conviction and sentenced dated 22.12.2015 was
challenged by the husband of complainant before this Court in Criminal
Appeal No. 331 of 2016 (Ajay alias Bhikari Valmiki Vs State of U.P.). In
aforesaid criminal appeal this Court was pleased to release husband of
complainant on bail, during pendency of criminal appeal, vide order dated
24.10.2017.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that after
release on bail, the husband of the complainant started creating nuisance.
He used to scuffle with the persons of the vicinity, even on petty issues.
On 04.06.2022 some hot words had taken place between him and
appellant No.1 on the issue of damping of garbage in the dustbin, installed
outside of the residence of appellants and on said issue he had committed
altercation with appellants Nos. 1 & 2 in the morning hours of 05.06.2022
at about 10:00 AM. Regarding aforesaid incident appellant No.1 lodged
First Information Report as Case Crime No. 266 of 2022, under Sections
323, 504, 506 I.P.C. at Police Station-Shahganj, District-Agra on
05.06.2022 at about 18:40 hours.

6. Learned counsel has further submitted that in aforesaid incident,
appellant Nos. 1 & 2 had sustained injuries and after registration of F.I.R.
both were medically examined at District Hospital Agra on the same day.
In pursuance to the aforesaid FIR, police provided with the investigation
                                                         CRLA No. 7043 of 2026
                                3


and after collecting evidence and recording statements, submitted charge
sheet against Ajay Valmiki, before the Court of learned Magistrate on
17.07.2022, under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC vide charge sheet No.
242/2022. When the F.I.R. of appellant No.1 got registered against
complainant's husband at Police Station-Shahganj, District-Agra on
05.06.2022, vide Case Crime No. 266 of 2022 then complainant, in order
to counter-blast the allegations levelled in F.I.R. as well as to save skin of
her husband, cooked up one false and frivolous story at her own table,
with conspiracy of her husband and moved complaint to the Senior
Superintendent of Police, by way of registered post on 07.06.2022. It has
been alleged in the said complaint that in the morning hours of
05.06.2022, accused appellants and their family persons had committed
altercation with her and outraged her modesty.

7. It has been further submitted that thereafter, the complainant/opposite
party No.2 filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. before the
Court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Agra on 01.07.2022. Said
application, under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. was rejected by learned
Additional Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Agra vide order dated
21.11.2022. Said     order    dated   21.11.2022     was    challenged     by
complainant/opposite party No.2 before this Court by filing Criminal
Appeal No. 1136 of 2023 'Suman Vs. State of U.P. & 7 Others'. Said
appeal was taken up before this Court on 09.05.2023. On said date, this
Court, keeping in view the law laid down by Division Bench, in the case
Naresh Kumar Valmiki Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. Reported in
MANU/UP3410/2022 as well as in Gyanendra Maurya Vs. Union of
India reported in MANU/UP/0238/2023, wherein, it is opined that the
special court with regard to the offence committed under S.C./S.T. Act
may take cognizance under Section 190(1) (a) Cr. P.C., was pleased to
dispose of the criminal appeal with the direction that if any complaint
case is filed by the appellant, for which he is entitled otherwise, the trial
court/special court shall be duty bound to proceed strictly in accordance
                                                        CRLA No. 7043 of 2026
                               4


with law, having regard in the procedure provided under Chapter XV of
Cr.P.C.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the
complainant/opposite party no.2 had instituted false and frivolous
criminal complaint before the Court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act,
Agra on 21.7.2023. On the said complainant, learned Special Judge has
taken cognizance and called the complainant for purpose of recording her
statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C vide order dated 21.7.2023 fixing
14.8.2023. Thereafter, learned Special Judge had further required the
opposite party no.2 under Section 200 Cr.P.C. on 20.1.2024. The
complainant/opposite party no.2 also produced two witnesses, namely,
Sanjay and Udaybhan Yogi and their statements have been recorded
under Section 202 Cr.P.C as CW-1 and CW-2 respectively.

9. Learned trial court after recording statements, issued notice to the
appellants and other accused persons. On receipt of said notice, the
appellants and other accused persons filed objection before the learned
trial court on 13.2.2026 and placed true and correct facts. Despite
objection of the accused persons/appellants, the learned trial court neither
hold any inquiry regarding genuineness and truthfulness of the allegations
levelled in the complaint as well as statements of witnesses, exercising
powers under Section 202 Cr.P.C. nor assessed the probability and
improbability of the allegations leveled in the complaint as well as
statement of witnesses nor applied its judicial mind and summoned the
accused/appellants.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that even as
per contents made in the complaint, Sanjay and Udaybhan Yogi, both are
not the eye witnesses of occurrence. As per allegation levelled in the
complaint that both witnesses arrived at the spot after the incident had
took place on hue and cry of the complainant. He has further submitted
that from the allegation made in the complaint as well as statement of the
                                                       CRLA No. 7043 of 2026
                               5


complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C, the incident of alleged
altercation as well castiest remarks had not taken place before the
witnesses, namely, Sanjay and Udaybhan Yogi. Both witnesses are not
eye witnesses of the alleged incident either of altercation or of castiest
remarks. It is revealed from the statement of the witnesses that they did
not state that they saved the complainant from the clutches of the accused
persons.

11. On exhaustive perusal of complaint, statement of witnesses and
evidence led before the learned trial court in support of complaint, does
not indicate that the complainant or any person had ever sustained injuries
in the alleged incident. As it is nowhere the case, either in the complaint
or statement of witnesses, that the complainant or any person was ever
medically examined by any medical officer, at any point of time. No
medical examination report has ever produced before the learned trial
court. He has further submitted that no offence has been committed under
Section 323 IPC. He further submitted that the basic ingredients which
constitutes an offence of outraging the modesty of the complainant are
also missing in the body of complaint as well as in the statement of
witnesses and thus summoning of accused/appellant nos. 1 and 2 for the
offence punishable under Section 354 IPC is also bad in the eyes of law.
It is further submitted that no Naksha Nazari of the complainant's
residence is available on record.

12. Learned counsel has further submitted that there is no ingredients of
Section 504, 506 IPC is made out. He has further submitted that there is
no mention either in the complaint or in the statements of witnesses that
the accused/appellants and other accused persons had committed any
crime and only to humiliate the accused for the reason that she is member
of scheduled caste. In absence of said provision, the penal clause of
Section 3(1)10 of SC/ST Act does not attract.

13. The allegation made by the complainant in her complaint that on
                                                      CRLA No. 7043 of 2026
                              6


5.6.2022 at 9.30 hours in the morning when she was going for 'pooja' in
the temple, at that time, Ramu Verma, Tannu Verma, Mukul Verma,
Mannu Verma, Triloki Verma, Ballu Verma, Tannu Verma and Shivam
Verma, all were throwing dirty clothes nearby 'Jan Mandir' which
includes diaper and filthy clothes of menses. When it was objected by the
complainant, then Mannu and Tannu hurled filthy abuses and stated
castiest remarks to the complainant. On objection of hurling abuses, they
have pushed the complainant and Triloki slapped on her cheek. Triloki
stated that do his mouth black and then Tannu and Mannu had committed
bad act with myself and they have snatched corner of my sari which was
on my head. I ran away in helpless condition to save myself to my house,
they have entered into my house and committed altercation with myself
and with my daughter. After hearing noise and screaming, the co-
villagers, Sanjay and Udaybhan saved us and they fled away after
threatening.

14. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that there is
no evidence of saving daughter of the complainant and that there is no
injury report. The witnesses Sanjay and Udaybhan have reached at the
spot after only hearing the noise. The complainant has recorded her
statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. She is a married lady, whose
husband is a convicted criminals under Section 302 IPC. There is no
injury report of any kind of the complainant. The appellant has also filed
an FIR being case crime No. 266 of 2022 of the incident dated 4.6.2022 at
10.00 hours and the FIR was lodged on 5.6.2022 at 18.40 hours. The
complainant in the said FIR is Manu Verma son of Ram Prakash Verma.
In both the FIR, neighbourhood is not disputed. The incident is related
with throwing of garbage and both incident is of dated 4.6.2022. In the
FIR lodged by appellants side as Case Crime No. 266 of 2022, the
incident is of 4.6.2022.

15. Learned counsel for the appellants has further relied on paragraph no.
                                                                CRLA No. 7043 of 2026
                                    7


17 of the law laid down by the Bombay High Court in Criminal Revision
Application No. 128 of 2017 (Rajesh Swarupchand Kankaria and
others Vs. The State of Maharashtra) as follows:

"17. In the case in hand, no inference of a criminal intention can be drawn from acts

of accused persons in the wake of the fact that the actual incident was that of a

quarrel initiated by the alleged victim PW1 Sunita. During the course of the quarrel

between both parties incident of pulling her by holding her hand and pulling her by

catching hold of a corner of her saree took place. PW1 Sunita was not alone at that

time. Her husband PW5 Nandkishore was with her. As culpable intention is an

essential ingredient of the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC; unless the

same is proved, merely twisting the hand causing fall of a woman or catching hold of

a corner of her saree during the cause of a quarrel cannot be called a deliberate act

of outraging the modesty of a female within the meaning of Section 354 of the IPC. If

evidence of PW1 Sunita and PW5 Nandkishore is seen in proper perspective, it cannot

be said that accused persons viz., accused no.1 Rajesh Kankaria and accused no.3
Swarupchand Kankaria might have fairly presumed or knew that by their act, they are

likely to outrage modesty of PW1 Sunita. The test will be whether a reasonable man

will think that the act of accused was intended to or was known to be likely to outrage

the modesty of the woman."


16. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has filed counter affidavit. He
has submitted that the complaint case is required to be established only
through documentary evidence. The evidentiary value of statement of the
complainant and other witnesses cannot be discarded. He has further
submitted that the learned trial court has considered the statement
recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C and the material available on
record and passed the summoning order dated 17.6.2026. He has further
submitted that discrepancy pointed out by the appellants regarding
reference of complainant's son and daughter is, at the highest, a minor
discrepancy in the narration of the occurrence and does not go to the root
of the allegations made by the complainant regarding the occurrence in
question.
                                                              CRLA No. 7043 of 2026
                                   8


17. He has further submitted that alleged registration of Case Crime No.
266 of 2022, the medical examination of the appellants and the
subsequent charge sheet against the husband of opposite party no.2 do
not, by themselves, establish that the present complaint is false or
malicious. The alleged cross-case and the present complaint relate to
disputed versions of the parties, the truthfulness whereof can be
determined only on the basis of evidence and cannot be conclusively
adjudicated in the present proceedings.

18. Learned counsel for the appellants has filed rejoinder affidavit to the
said counter affidavit and he denied the contents of the counter affidavit
and further submitted and strengthened his averment made in the memo
of criminal appeal and the supporting affidavit.

19. There are two cross version of the same incident. It is true and correct
that, who is the aggressor, that has to be seen at the stage of trial. The
present criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 14-A of SC/ST
Act, 1989. Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and the scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is as under:

"14A. Appeals.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or

order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an Exclusive Special

Court, to the High Court both on facts and on law."


20. Hence, in view thereof, this Court has the jurisdiction to appreciate
facts and law in the present criminal appeal.

21. As per contents of the present complaint in question, there has been
dispute about throwing of garbage/filthy material including diaper and
dirty    clothes     of    menses.      The     allegations     made     by    the
complainant/opposite party no.2 about using of castiest remark had not
been specifically stated that they had used the castiest word in public
view. The contents of the complaint discloses that the alleged offender
                                                        CRLA No. 7043 of 2026
                               9


belong to same family and there was no other person was present at the
time of alleged incident. The incident was not appeared to be in public
view and there is no specific or explicit using of castiest remark to the
complainant. She did not mention any specific averments that, who had
snatched her corner of her 'saree' which was removed from her head.
There is no ingredients of offence punishable under Section 354 IPC as
relied in paragraph 17 of said judgment Rajesh Swarupchand Kankaria
(supra).

22. As per averments made in the complaint by the complainant that at the
time of incident, there was no public person or alleged witnesses were
present. She had ran away in her house to save herself and thereafter the
accused persons had entered into her house and there they committed
altercation with her. The complainant did not even record statement of
her daughter, which are alleged to be beaten by the accused persons.
Thereafter, she has herself stated in the complaint that after hearing her
screaming and voice, co-villager Sanjay and Udaybhan Yogi had saved
her. As per her own statement, the incident, if any, is of only altercation
and hurling abuses as well as beating by legs and fists within the premises
of the house. There has been no medical evidence produced either of the
injured including the complainant, whereas, she has alleges that several
persons had beaten her. In normal course, the injuries has to be caused.

23. In view thereof and after perusing the entire facts and evidence on
record, as well as the submissions of learned counsel for the parties in
support of their averments, it is apparent that there is cross version of the
incident and cross FIR have been lodged by both the parties and, who, is
aggressor, that has to be seen at the stage of trial, whereas the allegation
and averment made by the complainant in the present case is appeared to
be exaggerated and without proper substance. There are absolutely no
basic ingredients of Section 354 IPC and 3(1)10 of SC/ST Act. Hence,
section 354 IPC and Section 3(1)10 of SC/ST Act, is hereby quashed in
                                                                                        CRLA No. 7043 of 2026
                                                                10


                                    the said summoning order dated 17.6.2026. The rest order of summoning
                                    under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC would remain operative.

                                    24. With these modifications in the aforesaid impugned summoning order
                                    dated 17.6.2026, the present criminal appeal, is hereby, disposed of
                                    accordingly.




                                    September 29, 2026
                                    sfa/
                                                                                         (Abdul Shahid,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
SYED FAHEEM AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad