MANOJ KUMAR PASWANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9904 of 2026

Manoj Kumar Paswan
                                                          .....Appellant(s)
                                  Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others
                                                        .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)                   :   Sudhir Kumar Verma
Counsel for Respondent(s)                  :   G.A.

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

1. Notice has not been issued to O.P. Nos.2 to 5.

2. Heard Shri Sudhir Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the appellant and
learned AGA for the State.

3. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the
impugned order dated 20.07.2026 passed by learned Special Judge
(S.C./S.T. Act), Fatehpur in Criminal Misc. Case No.147 of 2026 (Manoj
Kumar Paswan vs. Dinesh Kumar and Others), Police Station- Kotwali,
District- Fatehpur, by which the complaint filed by the appellant under
Section 173(4) BNSS was rejected.

4. An application under Section 173(4) of the BNSS was moved by the
complainant, namely Manoj Kumar Paswan, against the accused persons,
namely Dinesh Kumar, S.I. Santosh Kumar Shukla, Constable Mangla
Prasad Yadav and Constable Kuldeep Singh Yadav. In the said
application, it has been alleged that on 01.01.2026, an unidentified dead
body was recovered and that the police personnel named therein
intimidated the complainant and demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/-,
threatening that, in case the said amount was not paid, the complainant
would be falsely implicated in a criminal case.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned court below
has erred in rejecting the application under Section 173(4) BNSS despite
the material available on record disclosing cognizable offences. It is
submitted that an unidentified dead body was recovered on 01.01.2026
                                                       CRLA No. 9904 of 2026
                               2


near the Deori border, about two kilometres from the appellant's factory,
and thereafter the appellant and his family were allegedly approached by
the police personnel in connection with the said incident. It is further
submitted that the appellant's wife was taken to the police station and an
amount of Rs.20,000/- was allegedly demanded and paid under threat of
false implication in a serious criminal case. Learned counsel submits that
the relevant audio/video was circulated and departmental proceedings
were initiated against Constables Mangla Prasad Yadav and Kuldeep
Singh, who were subsequently found guilty and punished. It is argued that
these circumstances could not have been brushed aside by treating the
application as a pressure tactic, particularly when the appellant had
approached the police authorities and thereafter invoked the jurisdiction
of the court below. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that
a false case, being Case Crime No.578 of 2023, under Section 3/25 of the
Arms Act, had earlier been registered against the complainant. It is,
therefore, submitted that the impugned order dated 20.07.2026 be set
aside and appropriate directions be issued for registration of the FIR and
investigation in accordance with law.

6. Per contra, learned AGA submits that the learned court below has
rightly rejected the application under Section 173(4) BNSS after
considering the police inquiry report and the material available on record.
It is submitted that the allegations of caste-based abuse and other alleged
misconduct were not substantiated in the inquiry and that the allegation
regarding payment of Rs.20,000/- was also not sufficient to warrant
registration of an FIR. It is further submitted that the appellant had been
involved in earlier criminal proceedings and the present application was
moved as a pressure tactic against the concerned police personnel and
opposite party no. 2. Reliance has been placed upon the decision in
Sukhwasi v. State of U.P., 2007 (59) ACC 739 (All.-DB). It is
accordingly submitted that no illegality or infirmity has been committed
by the learned court below in rejecting the application and the present
appeal is liable to be dismissed.

7. It is admitted that accused-opposite party nos.3, 4 and 5 are public
servants. However, no specific allegation has been made in the
application under Section 173(4) of the BNSS as to which of the accused
                                                       CRLA No. 9904 of 2026
                               3


persons actually received the amount allegedly demanded from the
complainant. It further appears false allegation has been made against the
four accused persons out of which three are public servants, who are
posted at concerned police station. Moreover, no specific, reliable or
unequivocal caste-related words have been attributed to the accused
persons in the complaint so as to establish that the alleged caste-based
remarks were intentionally made with the object of insulting or
humiliating the complainant solely on the ground that he belongs to
SC/ST community.

8. In the case of Swaran singh Vs State, (2008) 8 SCC 435, the Hon'ble
Apex Court drew a clear distinction between the expressions "public
place" and "any place within public view." A private place may still be a
place within public view if the incident is visible to members of the
public. Conversely, merely because an incident occurs in a public
building does not automatically satisfy the requirement if it is not within
public view. The Supreme Court held that words such as "Chamar",
though originally denoting a caste, may amount to an offence if used as a
casteist abuse with intent to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Castes.
The Court emphasized that words should be understood in their popular
and social meaning, not merely their etymological meaning. For attracting
Section 3(1)(x) (now Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s)), there must be
intentional insult or intimidation; and intent to humiliate the victim
because he or she belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Mere
abuse or quarrel, without the requisite intention contemplated by the Act,
is insufficient. The Court reiterated that criminal proceedings should
continue only where the allegations disclose a prima facie offence against
the particular accused. Proceedings may be quashed where the FIR does
not disclose the essential ingredients against an accused.

9. In Gorige Pentaiah Vs state of AP & Ors 2009 Cri.L.J. 350, Honble
Apex court held "when the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in
the complaint, then permitting such complaint to continue and to compel
the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally
unjustified leading to abuse of process of law." In the case of Hitesh
Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand (2020) 10 SCC 710, the Hon'ble Suprme
Court held that 'a dispute that arose inside the private house of a
                                                                                          CRLA No. 9904 of 2026
                                                                  4


                                    complainant over the possession of the land without the presence of
                                    independent public witnesses, does not satisfy the statutory threshold of
                                    Section 3(1)(r).

                                    10. Thus, having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the
                                    case, the material and evidence available on record, the submissions
                                    advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the law laid down by
                                    the Hon'ble Supreme Court as discussed herein above, this court is of the
                                    considered opinion that the learned trial court has rightly rejected the
                                    application of the appellant filed under Section 173(4) BNSS. The
                                    impugned order dated 20.07.2026 does not suffer from any illegality,
                                    perversity or infirmity warranting interference by this Court.

                                    11. The appeal, being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed.

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



                                                                                             (Santosh Rai,J.)
                                    September 30, 2026
                                    Ankit.




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