Reserved on 18.01.2023

Delivered on 28.01.2023

Court No. - 88

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4664 of 2022

Appellant :- Ashwini Kumar And Another

Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Appellant :- Munna Lal,Amar Jeet,Kiran Bala,Pramod Kumar

Srivastava

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Yogesh Kumar Mishra

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the

respondent No.2/informant and learned AGA for the State.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants under section 14- A (1) of

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

(hereinafter referred as SC/ST Act) for quashing of charge-sheet dated

08.04.2022 and entire proceedings, including the summoning order dated

30.04.2022, passed by the learned Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Allahabad, in

S.T. No.210 of 2022 (State vs. Ashvini Kumar Yadav and others), Case

Crime No.402 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 354 (Kha) IPC

and section 3(2)va of SC/ST Act, P.S. Tharwai, District Prayagraj.

3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellants that the impugned

order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside. It has been

argued that the first information report of this case was lodged by respondent

No.2 making false and baseless allegations. In fact regarding the incident of

25.11.2018, the co-accused Radheshyam Yadav, who is father of appellants,

has lodged a first information report against the respondent No.2 and her

family members on 25.11.2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 324 IPC, and

in that incident, Radheshyam Yadav has sustained serious injuries and in that

matter after investigation police have submitted charge-sheet. The first

information report of this case has been lodged by respondent No.2 as a

counter-blast to the said case. The alleged incident has been shown of

25.11.2018 but first information report has been lodged on 04.12.2018 and

no explanation for delay in first information report has been shown. It is

further submitted that after investigation, the investigating officer found the

allegations false and prepared a final report but the concerned

Superintendent of Police has directed to investigate the matter further and

for recording of statement of complainant under Section 164 CrPC and

thereafter, the charge-sheet has been submitted against the appellants. The

Superintendent of Police has no power to make such direction for further

investigation. Learned counsel has referred statements of witnesses

including that of Ramchandra Harijan, who is brother-in-law of the

complainant, and he has denied the incident and in fact he has stated that the

complainant and her family members have assaulted the accused

Radheshyam Yadav and others. Similarly other witnesses namely, Mullu

Yadav and Santosh Kumar have also not supported the version of

complainant. Further in alleged incident, no-one has sustained any injury. It

was also pointed out that at the time of alleged incident, co-accused Ashwani

Kumar was present at his school, where he is posted as teacher. Referring to

the facts of the matter, it was submitted that no prima facie case is made out

against appellants and thus, the impugned cognizance/summoning order

dated 30.04.2022 as well as charge-sheet and the proceedings of the case are

liable to be quashed.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned AGA have opposed the

appeal. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that in the first

information report, the allegations have been levelled that all the accused

persons, including appellants, have abused the complainant by using caste

indicative words and they have assaulted her and outraged her modesty and

that version is supported by the complainant in her statement under Section

164 CrPC. It was stated that in fact earlier investigating officer has prepared

final report without getting recorded statement of compla