VIRENDRA RAMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                   CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 91 of 2025

Virendra Ram
                                                           .....Appellant(s)
                                  Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)       : Rajiv Chowdhury
Counsel for Respondent(s)      : Ashutosh Kumar Tripathi, G.A., Vijaya
                                 Nand Maurya

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/applicant, learned counsel for
opposite party nos.2 to 4 and learned AGA for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he do not wishes to file
any rejoinder affidavit to counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for
opposite party nos.2 to 4.

3. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant/applicant
with a prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated
22.10.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Varanasi in Criminal
Misc. Case No.563 of 2024 (Virendra Ram vs. Smt. Neha Maurya &
Anr.), under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S., P.S.- Chaubeypur, District-
Varanasi, whereby the application of the appellant/applicant under
Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. has been rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial court has
illegally rejected the application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. despite
the specific allegations that opposite party no.2 Smt. Neha Maurya, along
with co-accused Smt. Stuti Gupta and Smt. Kavita Dubey, abused the
appellant by using casteist slurs and assaulted him during a discussion
regarding the non-payment of salary to the school staff. It is further
submitted that the allegations disclose the commission of cognizable
offences, warranting registration of an FIR and a proper investigation, and
that the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
                                                         CRLA No. 91 of 2025
                               2


5. Learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 to 4 as well as learned AGA
supports the impugned order and submits that the trial court has rightly
rejected the appellant's application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S., as no
prima facie cognizable offence is made out from the allegations. It is
further contended that the present application has been moved by the
appellant before the trial court in counterblast to an FIR, being Case
Crime No.507 of 2024, registered by opposite party no.2 Smt. Neha
Maurya against the appellant. It is argued that the appeal, being devoid of
merit, is liable to be dismissed.

6. An application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. was moved by the
appellant against three persons, namely Smt. Neha Maurya, Smt. Stuti
Gupta and Smt. Kavita Dubey, all of whom are teachers in the same
school where the appellant was serving as Headmaster/Principal. It is
alleged that while the staff members were discussing the issue of non-
payment of salary since July, 2024, opposite party no.2 Neha Maurya
started uttering caste-based abusive words in a loud voice and assaulted
the appellant. Admittedly, the alleged incident is stated to have taken
place on 5.9.2024 at about 2:00 p.m. in the school premises, whereas the
injury report was prepared on 23.9.2024. The medical report specifically
records that the injuries were about 7 to 10 days old, which does not
corroborate the occurrence as narrated in the application under Section
173(4) B.N.S.S. In respect of the same incident dated 5.9.2024, Case
Crime No.587 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(2) BNS, had
already been lodged by opposite party no.2 Neha Maurya against the
appellant. It is further submitted that departmental proceedings were
initiated against the appellant, pursuant to which he was suspended and
thereafter transferred from the school, and that he also tendered an
apology before the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari.

7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it appears that the
present proceedings has been initiated as a counterblast to the criminal
case already instituted against the appellant. The conduct of the appellant
also indicates an attempt to misuse the process of law.

8. For the reasons recorded above, this Court finds that the learned trial
court has rightly rejected the application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. of
                                                                                              CRLA No. 91 of 2025
                                                                   3


                                    the appellant/applicant. The impugned order is well reasoned and does not
                                    suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference in appellate
                                    jurisdiction.

                                    9. The instant appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.

                                    10. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to serve a copy of this order by
                                    FAX/e-mail to the court concerned through District & Sessions Judge
                                    concerned within 48 hours.



                                                                                               (Santosh Rai,J.)
                                    September 18, 2026
                                    RA




Digitally signed by :-
RAZIQ ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad