[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Ambuj Pandey vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:69835
Reserved On: 9.1.2026 Delivered on :2.4.2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5876 of 2025
Ambuj Pandey
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Anurag Prasad, Munna Tiwari, Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, Syed Mohammad Abbas Husain
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 89
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Heard Sri Surendra Mohan Mishra, holding brief of Sri Anurag Prasad, learned counsel for appellant and Sri R.K. Singh, learned AGA for State.
2. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against the impugned summoning order dated 07.05.205 passed by the Court of Leanted Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Chitrakoot, in Special Session Trial No. 280 of 2025 (State vs. Ambuj Pandey) as well as the entire proceeding of Special Session Trial No. 280 of 2025 (State vs. Ambuj Pandey) pending in the court of learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Chitrakoot, to set aside the same.
3. The First Information Report, in substance, states that the informant,belonging to a Scheduled Caste and working as an agricultural labourer, alleged that on 26.08.2024 at about 7:00 p.m., while she was going out for defecation, she was intercepted at a deserted place by Ambuj Pandey, son of Moolchand Pandey @ Bablu, resident of the same village. It is alleged that he started speaking obscene words to her and, upon her objection, abused her by using caste-related derogatory remarks and forcibly took her on his motorcycle to a hotel. It is further alleged that he continued abusing her and took her to Yashi Hotel at Karvi, whereafter making an entry at about 8:00 p.m., he kept her there during the night and forcibly committed rape upon her. In the morning, he allegedly threatened her with dire consequences, including harm to her and her family, if she disclosed the incident to anyone. It is further stated that on 27.08.2024 at about 7:15 p.m., upon a missing report being lodged by her family members at Police Station Mau, the police, during search, reached Yashi Hotel and found the informant along with the said accused. It is alleged that thereafter, in collusion with the accused, the police pressurized the informant to give a statement in his favour and recorded her video. Subsequently, she was brought to the police station and later handed over to her family members. The informant further alleged that when her family questioned the conduct of the police and their alleged nexus with the accused, they were turned away from the police station without conducting her medical examination or registering a report.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the informant/victim had accompanied the appellant of her own free will. It was contended that as per the FIR itself, she had gone along with the appellant on his motorcycle, and it is highly improbable that an adult woman could be abducted on a motorcycle without offering any resistance. It was further submitted that she had also stated that both of them entered the hotel after making an entry, such conduct is inconsistent with the allegation of forcible abduction. It was also argued that the version given by the victim before the Investigating Officer regarding the manner of abduction is unreliable. She stated that while she was sitting on the motorcycle, the appellant gagged her mouth whenever she attempted to raise alarm, which appears unnatural and improbable. The victim also admitted that she had prior acquaintance with the appellant and that they had conversed with each other 6?7 months prior to the incident. On these grounds, it was submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case.
5. Learned AGA submitted that victim has supported prosecution version in her statements under Section 180 and 183 BNSS. Minor inconsistencies and contradictions in her statements are immaterial and cannot be considered for discarding the prosecution allegations.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. The Investigating Officer had interrogated the victim regarding the manner of occurrence. She admitted before him that she and the appellant used to converse with each other on mobile phone, though such conversation had stopped about 6?7 months prior to the incident. She further admitted that before reaching the hotel, they had travelled a distance of about 50 kilometers and, during the said journey, crossed a toll plaza, a police station as well as various markets.The victim further stated that whenever she attempted to raise alarm, the appellant gagged her mouth. She stated that the appellant was driving the motorcycle with one hand while using the other hand to gag her mouth. She also alleged that when she was being forcibly taken inside the hotel, she complained to the hotel staff, but her complaint was ignored.
7. When her statement under Section 183 BNSS was recorded, she stated that it was the appellant himself who had called the police at the hotel after her family members had lodged a report at the police station. She further stated that a compromise had taken place between them at the police station. She also stated that litigation between the family members of both sides is pending.
8. After perusing the material available on record, this Court finds that the version of the prosecution does not inspire confidence. The statements of the victim, particularly with regard to the manner of occurrence, are inconsistent and inherently improbable. The admitted fact that the victim travelled a considerable distance of about 50 kilometers with the appellant, crossing public places such as a toll plaza, police station and markets, without any effective resistance, casts serious doubt on the prosecution story. The explanation furnished by her that the appellant was driving the motorcycle with one hand and simultaneously gagging her mouth with the other appears unnatural and difficult to accept.
9. Further, it is admitted that the victim had prior acquaintance with the appellant and that they used to converse over mobile phone. The conduct of the parties in entering the hotel after making an entry, coupled with the fact that the appellant himself called the police, and the statement of the victim regarding compromise at the police station, further weakens the prosecution case. The existence of prior disputes and pending litigation between the parties also gives rise to the possibility of false implication. In view of these material infirmities and the lack of credible and reliable evidence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law.
10. The criminal appeal is likely to be allowed. The impugned summoning order dated 7.5.2025, as well as the entire proceedings of Special Session Trial No.280 of 2025, are liable to be set aside/quashed, as the Court has found the prosecution story to be unreliable, inconsistent, and improbable, and continuation of proceedings to be an abuse of process of law.
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
April 2, 2026
Mukesh
