M/S PRAKASH PHARMACYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9995 of 2026

M/S Prakash Pharmacy
                                                           .....Appellant(s)
                                  Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)                        :    Pushpa Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)                       :    G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State.

2. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant with a
prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 30.4.2026 passed by Special
Judge, SC/ST Act, Gautam Budh Nagar in Complaint Case No.1169 of
2023 (M/S Prakash Pharmacy (Proprietor Smt. Mamta) vs. Manohar Lal),
P.S.- Kasna, Greater Noida, District- Gautam Budh Nagar, whereby the
complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. of the appellant/applicant has been
rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Magistrate
has erred in rejecting the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. without
properly appreciating the allegations contained in the complaint and the
statements of the complainant and witnesses recorded under Sections 200
and 202 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the accused had purchased medicines
worth Rs.3,85,780/-, against which only Rs.1,02,900/- was paid, and
when the outstanding amount was demanded, the accused abused and
assaulted the complainant. It is further submitted that the material placed
on record disclosed sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused,
but the learned Magistrate has erroneously treated the dispute as merely a
business or civil dispute. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from
illegality and material irregularity and is liable to be set aside.

4. Learned AGA, opposing the appeal, submits that the learned Magistrate
has rightly rejected the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. after
                                                       CRLA No. 9995 of 2026
                               2


considering the complaint and the statements recorded under Sections 200
and 202 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the material on record does not
disclose any specific casteist remark or allegation that the complainant
was insulted or humiliated on account of her caste. It is further submitted
that admittedly no injury was caused to the complainant and the
allegations essentially arise out of a dispute concerning payment of
money in a business transaction. Thus, no sufficient ground was disclosed
for proceeding against the accused under the alleged penal provisions.
The impugned order calls for no interference and the appeal is liable to be
dismissed.

5. Upon consideration of the material available on record, it transpires
that the appellant, M/s Prakash Pharmacy, through its proprietor Smt.
Mamta, having shop No. 34, Kali Charan Market, Kasna, Greater Noida,
District Gautam Buddha Nagar, instituted the complaint against the
accused, Manohar Lal. The substance of the allegation is that the accused
had purchased medicines worth Rs.3,85,780/- from the complainant.
During the course of the business transaction, the accused paid a sum of
Rs.1,02,900/-, whereas the remaining amount remained unpaid. It is
alleged that when the outstanding amount was demanded, the accused
used derogatory words against the complainant and caused injury to her.
It is admitted fact that the complainant did not sustain any injury in the
alleged incident and that the case is, in fact, one in which no injury was
caused. It is further evident from the complaint that no specific casteist
slur has been attributed to the accused. Moreover, in the statement of the
complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. during the course of
inquiry before the learned Magistrate, there is no allegation that any
casteist remark was made with an intent to insult or humiliate the
complainant on the ground of her belonging to SC/ST category. The
statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., when
considered in conjunction with the averments contained in the complaint,
do not disclose the necessary foundational facts constituting the alleged
offence under the SC/ST Act.

6. On an overall consideration of the averments contained in the
complaint and the statements recorded during the inquiry, it appears that
the genesis of the dispute lies in the business transaction between the
                                                                                            CRLA No. 9995 of 2026
                                                                   3


                                    parties concerning payment of the outstanding amount towards the
                                    medicines purchased by the accused. The allegations, therefore,
                                    essentially arise out of a business and monetary dispute. The material on
                                    record does not disclose any specific allegation of caste-based insult or
                                    humiliation so as to attract the penal provisions invoked by the
                                    complainant. The attempt to give a criminal colour to what essentially
                                    appears to be a dispute arising out of a business transaction cannot, in the
                                    facts and circumstances of the present case, be sustained.

                                    7. For the reasons recorded above, this Court finds that the learned trial
                                    court has rightly rejected the complaint of the appellant/applicant. The
                                    impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting
                                    interference in appellate jurisdiction.

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

                                    9. 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 one week.



                                                                                               (Santosh Rai,J.)
                                    October 1, 2026
                                    RA




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