[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Anjali Devi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:84043
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1812 of 2026
Anjali Devi
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Krishna Mani
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A., Mazhar Ullah, Md Faiz Siddiqui
Court No. - 51
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
-
Heard Sri Krishna Mani, learned counsel for the appellant, Mohd. Faiz Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record.
-
This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred to allow the appeal and quash the order dated 13-01-2026 passed by the Special (SC/ST Act), Kaushambi in complaint case no.40 of 2025 (State Vs. Rajesh Tripathi & Ors.) arising out of Case Crime No.0037 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 352, 115(2), 121(1), 127(2), 324(3) BNSS and 3(2) (va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Rampura, District Jalaun.
-
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order dated 13.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Kaushambi is illegal and arbitrary and has been passed without proper appreciation of the material available on record. It is contended that the appellant has consistently supported the prosecution version right from the stage of lodging of the F.I.R., her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., and further in her statement recorded under Section 223 B.N.S.S., wherein she has specifically alleged that opposite party no.2 committed molestation, used caste-based abusive language and extended threats to her life. It is further submitted that the statements of the supporting witnesses also corroborate the version of the appellant, thus disclosing a prima facie case against the accused persons.
-
It is further contended that the learned trial court has erred in rejecting the complaint merely on the ground of absence of medical evidence, ignoring that the allegations primarily relate to molestation and caste-based abuse, for which medical corroboration is not a sine qua non. It is submitted that at the stage of summoning or consideration under Section 203 Cr.P.C., only a prima facie case is required to be seen and not a detailed appreciation of evidence. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from non-application of judicial mind and is liable to be set aside.
-
Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the allegations made by the appellant are false, baseless and have been levelled with an ulterior motive to harass and pressurize the answering respondent. It is contended that during investigation no credible evidence was found and the Investigating Officer submitted a final report, which clearly indicates falsity of the allegations. It is further submitted that independent witnesses, including hospital staff, have not supported the prosecution case and have denied the occurrence, and as such, the learned trial court has rightly dismissed the complaint.
-
It is further submitted on behalf of opposite party no.2 that the learned Special Judge, after considering the entire material available on record, has rightly concluded that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused persons and has rejected the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C., and thus, no interference is called for by this Court.
-
Having considered the rival submissions and perused the record, this Court finds that the scope at the stage of dismissal of complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. is limited to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out on the basis of material available on record and a detailed appreciation of evidence is not required at such stage.
-
In the present case, the appellant has consistently supported her allegations in her statements, including the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and her examination under Section 223 B.N.S.S. The witnesses examined in support of the complaint have also corroborated her version in material particulars. The allegations relate to offences of molestation, caste-based abuse and criminal intimidation.
-
The learned trial court has rejected the complaint primarily on the ground that no medical evidence has been produced and that the allegations are not sufficiently corroborated. In the considered opinion of this Court, such reasoning amounts to a deeper appreciation of evidence, which is not permissible at the stage of summoning. The absence of medical evidence cannot be a sole ground to discard allegations of molestation and caste-based abuse at the threshold.
-
Further, it appears that the learned trial court has evaluated the defence version and drawn conclusions on merits, which is impermissible at the preliminary stage. The impugned order thus reflects non-application of judicial mind and incorrect application of settled principles of law governing the scope of Section 203 Cr.P.C.
-
Lastly, the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State indicates, on the basis of the DCRB report, that the accused, Dr. Nishar Ahmad, has a criminal history of twelve cases, including the present one, wherein allegations under the SC/ST Act and Section 376 IPC are also involved. It is trite that the medical profession is regarded as one of utmost trust, integrity, and service to humanity; a doctor is expected to uphold the highest standards of ethical conduct and societal responsibility. The existence of such a large number of criminal cases against a person belonging to this noble profession casts a serious cloud over his integrity and conduct. Allegations of this nature are wholly inconsistent with the expected dignity and moral obligations of a medical practitioner, whose primary duty is to serve society with compassion, honesty and strict compliance with the law.
-
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Kaushambi in Complaint Case No. 25 of 2025 is hereby set aside.
-
The matter is remanded back to the learned trial court concerned to decide the complaint afresh in accordance with law, after considering the material on record. The instant appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
April 16, 2026
pks
