Smt Mithlesh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 12 May, 2026





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:109411
 
 
 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10984 of 2025   
 
   Smt Mithlesh    
 
  .....Appellant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. And 2 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Appellant(s)   
 
:   
 
Shiva Kant Dubey   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
Anant Ram Gupta, G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 51
 
   
 
  
 
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

Heard Sri Shiva Kant Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel appearing for opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and perused the record.

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 24.07.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Firozabad in Final Report No. 138 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 966 of 2023, under Sections 354, 354-B, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(w)(i) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Tundla, District Firozabad, whereby the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer has been accepted and the protest petition filed by the appellant has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order passed by the court below is wholly illegal, arbitrary and against the settled principles of law. It is submitted that the learned court below failed to appreciate that the First Information Report lodged by the appellant contains specific and categorical allegations against opposite party no.2 regarding sexual harassment, outraging of modesty, criminal intimidation and caste-based abuses. It is further submitted that the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. fully supports the prosecution case and specifically discloses that opposite party no.2 had taken the victim inside the hostel room, showed her private photographs allegedly taken from her mobile phone, threatened to viral the same on social media, forcibly dragged her into a room, tore her clothes and attempted to establish physical relations against her will. The victim further stated that opposite party no.2 used to blackmail her repeatedly, check her mobile phone for hours and threatened to ruin her social reputation if she disclosed the incident to anyone.

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the victim had also specifically stated in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that after she objected to the conduct of opposite party no.2, she was removed from service and was threatened with dire consequences. It is submitted that the learned court below completely ignored the specific allegations levelled by the victim in her statements recorded during investigation.

It is next contended that the Investigating Officer conducted the investigation in a one-sided and unfair manner and relied only upon the statements of the school staff members, who were admittedly subordinate employees working under the control and influence of opposite party no.2. It is submitted that the so-called independent witnesses are not independent witnesses in the true sense and their statements could not have been accepted at face value without proper judicial scrutiny.

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the protest petition filed by the appellant was accompanied by affidavits of witnesses namely Honey, Kuldeep and Jadinesh, who specifically stated that opposite party no.2 had visited the locality of the appellant and admitted his mistake before local persons and assured that such conduct would not be repeated in future. It is submitted that these materials were completely ignored by the court below while passing the impugned order.

Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3 as well as learned A.G.A. have supported the impugned order and submitted that the allegations levelled by the appellant are false, concocted and have been made only after she was removed from service due to negligence in discharge of duties. It is further submitted that during investigation several witnesses including school staff members namely Bharti Kumari, Vijay Laxmi, Megha Jain, Aashna Jain, Neha Bhardwaj, Ravindra Kumar and Hemlata were examined, who categorically denied any incident of molestation or harassment and stated that the appellant had misbehaved with school staff and was removed from service after she abandoned the school bus midway resulting in an accident.

It is further submitted that the victim refused to undergo medical examination and also did not cooperate with the Investigating Officer for inspection of the place of occurrence. It is submitted that the statements relied upon in the protest petition are of persons belonging to the locality of the appellant, who are neither eye-witnesses nor connected with the alleged occurrence. Therefore, the learned court below has rightly accepted the final report and rejected the protest petition.

I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

From the record, it transpires that the First Information Report contains specific allegations against opposite party no.2 regarding outraging the modesty of the appellant, attempt to establish forcible physical relations, blackmailing by misuse of photographs and caste-related abuses. The statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. also substantially supports the version disclosed in the F.I.R.

It further appears from the record that the learned court below while rejecting the protest petition has primarily relied upon the statements of the school staff members recorded during investigation and has treated them as independent witnesses. However, admittedly all such witnesses were employees or staff members of the same institution where opposite party no.2 was working as Manager. The impugned order does not reflect any consideration regarding the possibility of influence or dominance of opposite party no.2 over such witnesses.

The court below also failed to consider that the victim had consistently supported the prosecution case in her statements recorded during investigation and the allegations made by her disclosed cognizable offences requiring deeper judicial scrutiny. The affidavits filed along with the protest petition were also not properly evaluated by the court below.

It is well settled that while considering a protest petition against a final report, the Magistrate/Special Judge is required to independently apply judicial mind to the entire material collected during investigation and may disagree with the conclusion of the Investigating Officer if sufficient grounds for proceeding are made out.

In the present case, this Court finds that the learned court below has not adequately considered the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and other relevant materials placed on record and has proceeded to accept the final report in a cursory manner.

Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 24.07.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Firozabad in Final Report No. 138 of 2024 is hereby set aside.

The matter is remitted back to the court concerned to reconsider the protest petition afresh in accordance with law after independently appreciating the entire material available on record and after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

May 12, 2026

pks