Allahabad High Court
Pankaj Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 September, 2025
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:159783
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8085 of 2025
Pankaj Kumar
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
A. K. Sand, Gaurang Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 83
HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.
1. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter "the SC/ST Act") has been preferred by the appellant challenging the order dated 21.07.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Hamirpur in Sessions Case No. 552 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 410 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST Act, whereby the appellant's application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for discharge has been rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the FIR dated 12.08.2023 was lodged only under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., which are non-cognizable offences, and that no allegation of caste-related abuse was made therein. He contended that the offences under the SC/ST Act were added belatedly on 29.08.2023 after the Investigating Officer obtained the caste certificate of the complainant and recorded her further statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 05.09.2023, in which, for the first time, caste-based allegations were introduced. It was argued that such belated addition is impermissible and smacks of mala fide, particularly to secure monetary compensation.
4. It was further contended that investigation of the original offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. was barred in the absence of a Magistrate's order under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the trial court, without examining these legal aspects, has rejected the discharge application in a perfunctory manner. In support of his submissions, reliance was placed on: Hutu Ansari @ Futu Ansar vs. State of Jharkhand (decided on 07.04.2025), wherein the Court quashed proceedings upon finding that the allegations of caste-based abuse were wholly absent in the FIR and appeared to be an afterthought; Shashikant Sharma vs. State of U.P. (AIR 2024 SC 193), where the Supreme Court held that mala fide and motivated prosecutions cannot be permitted to continue; and B.N. John vs. State of U.P. (AIR 2025 SC 759), wherein the Court emphasized that when no ingredients of an offence are disclosed even on the face of the record, the accused is entitled to discharge.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that once the complainant, in her later statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., made specific allegations of caste-based insult, and prima facie material was collected during investigation, offences under the SC/ST Act were rightly added. It was contended that at the stage of framing charge, the Court has to proceed on the assumption that the material produced by the prosecution is true, and cannot weigh its sufficiency or reliability.
6. Upon consideration, it is evident that the FIR was initially registered only under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., but in the subsequent 161 Cr.P.C. statement the complainant specifically alleged caste-based abuses. The trial court, while rejecting discharge, has observed that such allegations, if taken at face value, do constitute offences under the SC/ST Act, and has rightly relied upon settled principles that at this stage the Court is not to conduct a mini-trial.
7. The reliance placed by the appellant on the above judgments does not advance his case. In Hutu Ansari (supra), the Court found that there was absolutely no material on record, even in subsequent statements, to attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act. The present case is distinguishable because the complainant has indeed made specific caste-related allegations in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement, which, at the stage of charge, must be presumed true. Similarly, in Shashikant Sharma (supra), the prosecution was found to be demonstrably mala fide, whereas in the present case there is prima facie material which requires adjudication at trial. The principle in B.N. John (supra) that discharge is warranted where no offence is made out is unexceptionable, but here, the subsequent statements do disclose ingredients of the alleged offences.
8. It is settled law that at the stage of discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C., the Court is only to see whether, assuming the prosecution case to be true, the ingredients of the offence are disclosed. The probative value of the material cannot be assessed at this stage, nor can the Court conduct a roving enquiry into its acceptability.
9. In the present case, the allegations as developed in the course of investigation, if accepted at their face value, do prima facie disclose offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST Act. Whether these allegations are ultimately reliable or concocted is a matter for trial. Once cognizable offences under the SC/ST Act were added, the objection regarding Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. also loses its force.
10. This Court finds no illegality, perversity, or impropriety in the impugned order dated 21.07.2025 rejecting the appellant's discharge application.
11. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.
(Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.)
September 10, 2025
RavindraKSingh
