Allahabad High Court
Nanake Prasad vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 1 May, 2025
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26399
Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1335 of 2025
Appellant :- Nanake Prasad
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And 5 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Alok Kr. Misra,Ajeet Kumar Mishra,Mrs.Shashi Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.
2. In the light of proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with.
3. By means of present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of SC/ST Act the appellant has assailed the judgment and order dated 26.03.2025, passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bahraich in Criminal Misc. Case No. 595/12/2024 - Nanake Prasad Vs. Bhagauti and Others), whereby the trial court has rejected the application of appellant preferred under Section 173(4) of BNSS.
4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that an application U/s 173(4) of BNSS was filed by the appellant before the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bahraich alleging that the appellant-complainant who belongs to Scheduled Caste category and also runs a shop at Panditpurwa Crossing, has alleged that the private respondents who are very influential persons had purchased goods worth Rs.550/- from the shop of the appellant did not pay the said amount but had stated that payment would be made within 2-4 days. It is further stated that on 29.11.2024, at around 8PM the private respondents came to appellant's shop and the appellant asked for outstanding money, they used caste related words and threatened him and also assaulted him and also took away 4-5 thousand rupees. It was stated that there were number of persons present on the spot who were witness to the said incident and the appellant ran away after being assaulted. Subsequently, effort was made for registration of FIR at the local Police Station and when FIR was not registered, then registered letter was also sent to the higher Police Officers and subsequently an application U/S 173(4) of BNSS was moved before the trial Court on which Police Report was called for.
5. In the Police report it was stated that the incident as alleged by the appellant did not occurred while on the other hand it was admitted that there was private civil dispute between the appellant and private respondents for recovery of certain money and in order of avoid payment, false complaint has been filed by the appellant seeking registration of FIR. The trial Court after due inquiry, rejected the application preferred by the appellant.
6. Before the trial Court notices were issued to the private respondents who had filed their objections and the trial Court duly noticed the fact that all the private respondents are of same family.
7. It is stated that present proceedings are initiated out of dispute wherein a complaint has been filed against the private respondents at the behest of the Pradhan. In the aforesaid circumstances, the trial Court has concluded that the incident as alleged by the appellant never occurred and from facts stated in the application made by the appellant and the Police report it was clear that the dispute was only a civil dispute pertaining to recovery of money and accordingly, the trial Court did not find any reason to pass any order directing the Police to register FIR in exercise of power under Section 173(4) of BNSS.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the order passed by the trial Court is illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as once cognizable offence is made out as per application, then it was mandatory of the trial Court to pass suitable orders for registration of FIR. It is stated that perusal of complaint indicates that the private respondents had used caste related words against the appellant and same disclosed cognizable offence.
9. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand submits that it is the discretion of the Magistrate to exercise power under Section 173(4) of BNSS and he is entitled to conduct inquiry prior to passing any orders and in the present case, the trial Court had directed the Police to conduct inquiry. It is on the basis of the Police report that sufficient material has been brought on record indicating that no such incident occurred and further undisputedly there is civil dispute going on between the parties and it cannot be said that the impugned order has been passed on unsubstantiated facts and hence prays for dismissal of appeal.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. Without reiterating the facts as narrated above, it is noticed that the trial Court had relied upon the Police report. There is no dispute that a civil dispute is pending for recovery of money between the appellant and private respondents and it is only on account of recovery of money that at the behest of Pradhan, it seems that present complaint was filed.
12. Accordingly, this Court finds that the trial Court has duly considered all the aspect of the matter and it has satisfied itself with regard to non occurrence of the alleged incident. Apart from the above, the private civil dispute is already pending between the parties and this Court do not find any infirmity in the impugned order rejecting the application of the appellant.
13. No other fact has been brought on record which may indicate that the findings arrived at by the trial Court were infirm or require any interference by this Court.
14. In the light of above, present appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.5.2025
A. Verma
(Alok Mathur, J.)
