# Subhadra v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 11 ILRA 387
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-11-16
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1929 of 2021
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/subhadra-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49343
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Constitution Of India, 1950
- - Article 226 - Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 14-A(1) -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Section 156(3) - Criminal Appeal -
Rejection
of
Application
for
FIR
Registration - Mala Fide Intention -
Counterblast Litigation
The appellant challenged the order dated
14.10.2021 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST
(P.A.) Act, Lucknow, rejecting her application
under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C., for registration of
an FIR against the respondents. The appellant
alleged an incident warranting an FIR, while the
respondents argued the application was a
counterblast to a prior case (Case Crime No.
741 of 2017 under Sections 326, 452, 147, 148,
323, 504, 506, IPC) filed against the appellant's
mother and brother, and a complaint case (No.
380 of 2018) filed by the appellant herself.
Held: (1) The appeal was dismissed. (2) The
trial court's rejection of the Section 156(3)
application was justified, as the appellant's
allegations in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, and 11 of the
application were improbable and unbelievable,
appearing as a mala fide attempt to falsely
implicate the respondents, including young
students, to ruin their careers and extract
financial benefits, leveraging her SC/ST status
against higher-caste respondents. (3) The
appellant's application was a counterblast to
existing litigation, aimed at pressuring the
respondents to compromise the case against her
family. (4) No illegality or infirmity was found in
the impugned order, which was reasoned and
upheld principles of natural justice and equity.

## Text

11 All. Subhadra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
387

10. Accordingly, this appeal lacks
merit and substance, which is hereby
dismissed.

11. However, keeping in view the fact
and circumstances of the case, the learned
trial court concerned is directed to get the
trial concluded within one year from today
with utmost expedition, without granting
any unnecessary adjournments to the
parties, in case there is no other legal
impediment.

12. It is made clear that the trial of the
aforesaid case shall be conducted without
being influenced by any observation made
herein above which are confined to the
disposal of the instant criminal appeal.
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 387
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1929 of 2021

Subhadra ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Ashutosh Pathak, Avinash Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Illegible, V.K. Tripathi, Vinay Prakash Tiwari

Criminal Law - Constitution Of India, 1950
- - Article 226 - Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 14-A(1) -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Section 156(3) - Criminal Appeal -
Rejection
of
Application
for
FIR
Registration - Mala Fide Intention -
Counterblast Litigation
The appellant challenged the order dated
14.10.2021 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST
(P.A.) Act, Lucknow, rejecting her application
under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C., for registration of
an FIR against the respondents. The appellant
alleged an incident warranting an FIR, while the
respondents argued the application was a
counterblast to a prior case (Case Crime No.
741 of 2017 under Sections 326, 452, 147, 148,
323, 504, 506, IPC) filed against the appellant's
mother and brother, and a complaint case (No.
380 of 2018) filed by the appellant herself.
Held: (1) The appeal was dismissed. (2) The
trial court's rejection of the Section 156(3)
application was justified, as the appellant's
allegations in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, and 11 of the
application were improbable and unbelievable,
appearing as a mala fide attempt to falsely
implicate the respondents, including young
students, to ruin their careers and extract
financial benefits, leveraging her SC/ST status
against higher-caste respondents. (3) The
appellant's application was a counterblast to
existing litigation, aimed at pressuring the
respondents to compromise the case against her
family. (4) No illegality or infirmity was found in
the impugned order, which was reasoned and
upheld principles of natural justice and equity.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashutosh Pathak, learned
counsel for the appellant, Ms. Chaaru
Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the entire record.

2. This Criminal Appeal under
Section 14-A (1) of Scheduled Castes
& Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities)
Act,
1989
has
been
preferred against the impugned order
dated 14.10.2021 passed by learned
Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act,
Lucknow,
in
Criminal
Misc.
Application No. 299 of 2021, under
Section
156
(3),
Cr.P.C.,
Police
Station Madiyaon, District Lucknow,
whereby application of the appellant
has been rejected.
388 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3. Learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the appellant had moved an
application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C.
for lodging of an F.I.R., which was rejected
by the impugned order dated 14.10.2021,
without considering the averments made in
the application. He further submits that the
incident had actually taken place and there
was no any intention of the appellant to
take revenge or to file a case in
counterblast of the case, which was filed by
the opposite parties against the mother and
brother of the appellant, thus, the impugned
order be quashed and a direction be issued
to the Court below to pass an order for
registration of the first information report.

4. Miss Chaaru Singh, learned A.G.A.
has submitted that the impugned order is
perfectly just and legal and no interference
is required in the matter at this stage.

5. From the averments made in the
application filed under Section 156(3),
Cr.P.C., it appears that the appellant wants
to implicate the entire family in a false
case, which is nothing, but a counterblast of
the case, which was filed against the
mother Ramadei alias Ramkali and brother
Pintoo Kannaujia of the appellant bearing
Case Crime No. 741 of 2017 under
Sections 326, 452, 147, 148, 323, 504, 506,
I.P.C.,
in
which
after
investigation
chargesheet has also been submitted against
the mother and brother of the appellant. It
has also been submitted by the learned
A.G.A. that the appellant herself has also
filed a Complaint Case bearing No. 380 of
2018 against one Ram Charitra Mishra, one
of the opp. parties herein. It has also been
submitted by the learned A.G.A. Miss
Chaaru Singh that from a plain reading of
the case set up by the appellant it is clear
that she one after another made allegations
against the opposite parties regarding the
incident from 2017 till 2021, whereas she is
a married lady and only to give colour to
the gravity of the offence she has shown
her presence in her parental house and also
showed that she is pregnant. She also
submits that from a perusal of the
averments made in para Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 11
the story totally appears to be improbable
and
unbelievable.
She
particularly
emphasised that in the array of the opposite
parties there are some young boys who are
students and it appears that it is a ploy of
the appellant to destroy the entire career of
these aspirants, who are seeing their future
in competitive examinations and also trying
for better job, thus, the intention of the
appellant is very much clear, and as she
belongs to the SC/ST Category and the
opposite parties belong to the higher caste,
she wants to falsely implicate them to ruin
their career and also to get some financial
aid by the State Exchequer, thus, the Court
below has rightly rejected the application
filed by the appellant under Section 156
(3), Cr.P.C. and a reasoned and detailed
order has been passed, thus, no interference
is required by this Court in the matter and
the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

6. After considering the arguments, as
advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties and after perusal of the impugned
order as well as the averments made in the
application filed by the appellant under
Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C., this Court is of the
view that the entire exercise adopted by the
appellant is nothing, but with mala fide and
arbitrary intention, only to falsely implicate
the opposite parties, in which there are
some young students and aspirants looking
for their future in competitive exams for
job and if once a case is registered against
them, their entire future shall be ruined.
Thus, the Court has to protect the future
and interest of these type of students and
11 All. Arvind Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
389
also to frustrate such type of activities,
which are being adopted with the intention
to falsely implicate the persons, who have
no concern at all with the incident alleged
and are future of the nation, thus, their
appears
force
in the
arguments,
as
advanced by the learned A.G.A. Miss
Chaaru Singh that the entire story as
developed by the appellant in para Nos. 5,
6, 7 and 11 appears to be totally improbable
and unbelievable. The appellant has tried to
connect the incidents from 2017 till 2021
with the opposite parties, but since she
failed in her all attempts, the said
application has been moved to anyhow get
an order from the Court for lodging of the
first information report against the persons,
who have no concern at all regarding the
said incident, thus, this Court after perusal
of the impugned order is fully justified by
the reasoning given by the Court below and
as there is already a case filed against the
mother and brother of the appellant by the
opposite parties bearing Case Crime No.
741 of 2017 under Sections 326, 452, 147,
148, 323, 504, 506, I.P.C., there appears a
ploy to put pressure on the opposite parties
to anyhow get the matter compromised,
which has been filed against the mother and
brother of the appellant.

7. There is one other criminal
complaint also filed by the appellant herself
against one of the appellants Ram Charitra
bearing Complaint Case No. 380 of 2018,
thus, it appears that the appellant, her
mother and other family members are
intentionally lodging and filing frivolous
cases against the opposite parties to
anyhow implicate them in the false case,
thus, considering the principle of Natural
Justice and the question of equity, this
Court is of the view that no interference is
required in the impugned order. The
impugned order is rightly passed by the
court below. The counsel for the appellant
fails to demonstrate any illegality or
infirmity in the impugned order, which is
perfectly just, legal and valid in the
circumstances of the case and no relief can
be granted to the appellant against it.
Accordingly, this appeal lacks merits and is
hereby dismissed.
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 389
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED AFTAB HUSSAIN RIZVI,
J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2899 of 2003
connected with
Criminal Appeal No. 2755 of 2003

Arvind Kumar & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Udai Karan Saxena, Sri Sanjeev Kumar
Singh, Sri Satya Prakash Chaturvedi

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 376(2)(g) & 302/34 - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 313
& 437A - Criminal Appeal - Rape and Murder -
Conviction and Sentence - Reliability of Sole
Eye-Witness - Chance Witness - Discrepancies
in Evidence

The appellants, Arvind Kumar, Surjeet, and
Babloo,
challenged
their
conviction
and
sentence dated 30.05.2003 by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Jalaun, in Sessions Trial No. 77
of 2000, arising from Case Crime No. 337 of
1999 under Sections 376(2)(g) and 302/34 IPC,
for the rape and murder of a 13-year-old girl.
They were sentenced to 10 years' rigorous