HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Dharmendra Singh And Another .....Appellant(s)

Versus State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : G.A., Gunjan Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) :

Court No. - 51 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1. Heard Sri Ajay Sengar holding brief of Ms. Gunjan Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Deepak Dubey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and Sri R.K.Singh, learned AGA for the State.

2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred to allow the present appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 20.11.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Jalaun at Orai in Criminal Misc. Case (Final Report) No. 0080 of 2025 (State of U.P. vs. Dharmendra Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0056 of 2025, under Section 328, 376D, 504, 506 IPC, 1860 and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S. Nadigon, District Jalaun.

3. The brief facts of this case are that an FIR in Case Crime No. 56 of 2025, under Sections 376D, 504, 506, 328 IPC and 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, P.S. Nadigao, District Jalaun, was lodged by the respondent/informant against the present appellants. It was stated in the FIR that Sanjeev Kumar, husband of the informant, was utilizing leased land of Manvendra Singh for growing vegetables. Her husband had also constructed a tube well in the fields where Manvendra Singh @ Sonu and his friends used to arrive. On 27.03.2024, at about 1:30 pm, Manvendra Singh along with his friends Dharmendra Singh, Jitendra Singh, Nikhil Pratap Singh, Pehalwan Singh arrived there in a vehicle when the informant along with her husband was busy in her fields. They stayed there for an hour. They asked her husband to buy some articles from the market. Her husband went to the market, which was 2-3 km away from her fields. After her husband left for the market, all of them raped her at gunpoint. Before leaving from spot, they administered her some sedative substance through inhaling which made her unconscious. They also clicked photographs and videos of the incident of rape. She went to the police station with her husband to lodge report, but it was not lodged. When accused Manvendra Singh @ Sonu came to know that she had submitted a complaint against him, he threatened her to leave his fields and also threatened that her obscene videos and photos would be circulated publicly if she dared to lodge a report. The informant became afraid on account of the said threats and told the entire incident to her in-laws. After one year of the incident, accused Manvendra Singh called her to the fields by sending a message through a boy that if she did not arrive at his field, he would circulate her obscene photos. Distressed by this blackmailing, informant filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The said application was allowed by the concerned Magistrate who directed the S.H.O. to lodge an FIR against the appellant- accused. The matter was investigated and the I.O. did not find any evidence during investigation and submitted a final report. Aggrieved by the submission of the final report, the respondent/informant preferred a protest petition before the court. The learned court allowed the protest petition by disagreeing with the final report and summoned the appellants vide its order dated 20.11.2025 under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. to face trial for offences under Sections 376D, 504, 506, 328 IPC and 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act. Aggrieved by the order dated 20.11.2025, the appellants have preferred this criminal appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that impugned order passed by learned court in rejecting the final report and summoning appellants under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. is patently wrong and illegal. The law is crystalised on this point that a Magistrate can either agree or disagree with a police report under Section 173(2