High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Shubham Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State.

2. In view of the proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with.

3. By means of the present appeal under Section 14 A (1) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the appellant has assailed the order dated 13.2.2025 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Lakhimpur Kheri wherein he has accepted the final report submitted by the police and rejected the protest petition preferred by the appellant.

4. Brief facts of the case, as stated by the appellant, are that an F.I.R. was lodged by the appellant under Sections 342, 323, 506 IPC and 3(1) Da, 3(2) 5 A of S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act relating to police station Bhira, District Kheri on 16.8.2022 against opposite party No.s 2 and 3 stating that on the date of the incident i.e. 16.8.2023 at 9.00 a.m. in the morning when the complainant was walking alone then the Pradhan Ravindra Yadav as well as Balram sons of Banaras stopped the complainant; abused her; physically assaulted her and also threatened her. It was further stated that the complainant is working as a cook in the Primary School.

5. During the investigation, statement of the complainant was also recorded where she had narrated the same facts stating that she was walking alone on the said date. The police in its final report had submitted that the complainant did not cooperate in the investigation nor did she name any other witness while, on the other hand, the investigating office had taken the statement of number of persons concerned with the said incident giving different versions of the said incident. It was informed to him which have been recorded in the final report that the behavior of the complainant in the school was unbecoming of an employee in the said school and she was in conflict with the school authorities and on 15.8.2023 she had asked all the children to go out from the school. This fact was informed by one Balram Yadav son of Banarasi to the Pradhan who had also gone to the school on the said complaint to find out the cause of behavior of the complainant. It is stated that the first information report is in retaliation to the incident which had occurred on prior day where one of the named accused assaulted the employee wherein final report has been accepted while the fact is that in the protest petition the appellant had named number of persons as witnesses to the said incident. It is stated that without appreciating the contents of the protest petition the final report has been accepted and consequently such an order would be illegal, arbitrary and liable to be interfered with in appeal.

6. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, has opposed the appeal. He submits that the trial court has duly looked into the contents of the final report and the material on record as well as the protest petition filed by the complaint before accepting the same and submits that the same does not require any interference by this Court.

7. I have heard rival contentions and also perused the record.

8. It is noticed that the only point of contention is the number of witnesses which according to the complainant should have been examined before passing any order on the final report submitted by the police. In the present case, the first information report which undoubtedly has been lodged by the complainant without any pressure in respect of incident happened on 16.8.2023 where she has leveled allegations against the accused of abusing her and also physically assaulting her etc. where she has clearly stated that she was walking alone and no other witness has been named in the first information report even in the statement before the police. We do not find that any other witness was named by her while, on the other hand, during the investigation the police has recorded the statements of number of independent persons and also noticed the incident which had occurred a day prior to the alleged incident of 16.8.2022.

9. Accordingly, we find that even from material available on record, the complainant herself had not named any witness but one witness has been named only in the protest petition. It is further noticed that during the investigation the police has recorded the statement of number of other persons and it is not that merely on the basis of contrary opinion existing that the final report has been issued. It has duly been noticed that on the day prior to the said incident the complainant herself was involved in an incident of which no narration or explanation is available or given by her either before the police authorities or even in the present appeal despite the fact that the same finds duly mentioned in the impugned order dated 13.2.2025.

10. In the case of Vishnu Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. reported in (2019) 8 SCC 27, it is held, "before a Magistrate proceeds to accept a final report under S.173 and exonerate the accused, it is incumbent upon the Magistrate to apply his mind to the contents of protest petition and arrive at a conclusion thereafter - While the investigating officer may rest content by producing the final report, which, according to him, is the culmination of his efforts, the duty of the Magistrate is not one limited to readily accepting the final report - It is incumbent upon Magistrate to go through the materials, and after hearing the complainant and considering the contents of protest petition, finally decide the future course of action to be, whether to continue with the matter or to close the case."

11. As such, from the perusal of the material as well as the impugned order, we find that the trial court has duly considered all the aspects of the matter and it is only when there is no substantial evidence or material forthcoming regarding occurrence of cognizance offence that the final report has been accepted. In view of the above, we do not find any ground for interference. The appeal being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 1.4.2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur, J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Shubham Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State.

2. In view of the proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with.

3. By means of the present appeal under Section 14 A (1) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the appellant has assailed the order dated 13.2.2025 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Lakhimpur Kheri wherein he has accepted the final report submitted by the police and rejected the protest petition preferred by the appellant.

4. Brief facts of the case, as stated by the appellant, are that an F.I.R. was lodged by the appellant under Sections 342, 323, 506 IPC and 3(1) Da, 3(2) 5 A of S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act relating to police station Bhira, District Kheri on 16.8.2022 against opposite party No.s 2 and 3 stating that on the date of the incident i.e. 16.8.2023 at 9.00 a.m. in the morning when the complainant was walking alone then the Pradhan Ravindra Yadav as well as Balram sons of Banaras stopped the complainant; abused her; physically assaulted her and also threatened her. It was further stated that the complainant is working as a cook in the Primary School.

5. During the investigation, statement of the complainant was also recorded where she had narrated the same facts stating that she was walking alone on the said date. The police in its final report had submitted that the complainant did not cooperate in the investigation nor did she name any other witness while, on the other hand, the investigating office had taken the statement of number of persons concerned with the said incident giving different versions of the said incident. It was informed to him which have been recorded in the final report that the behavior of the complainant in the school was unbecoming of an employee in the said school and she was in conflict with the school authorities and on 15.8.2023 she had asked all the children to go out from the school. This fact was informed by one Balram Yadav son of Banarasi to the Pradhan who had also gone to the school on the said complaint to find out the cause of behavior of the complainant. It is stated that the first information report is in retaliation to the incident which had occurred on prior day where one of the named accused assaulted the employee wherein final report has been accepted while the fact is that in the protest petition the appellant had named number of persons as witnesses to the said incident. It is stated that without appreciating the contents of the protest petition the final report has been accepted and consequently such an order would be illegal, arbitrary and liable to be interfered with in appeal.

6. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, has opposed the appeal. He submits that the trial court has duly looked into the contents of the final report and the material on record as well as the protest petition filed by the complaint before accepting the same and submits that the same does not require any interference by this Court.

7. I have heard rival contentions and also perused the record.

8. It is noticed that the only point of contention is the number of witnesses which according to the complainant should have been examined before passing any order on the final report submitted by the police. In the present case, the first information report which undoubtedly has been lodged by the complainant without any pressure in respect of incident happened on 16.8.2023 where she has leveled allegations against the accused of abusing her and also physically assaulting her etc. where she has clearly stated that she was walking alone and no other witness has been named in the first information report even in the statement before the police. We do not find that any other witness was named by her while, on the other hand, during the investigation the police has recorded the statements of number of independent persons and also noticed the incident which had occurred a day prior to the alleged incident of 16.8.2022.

9. Accordingly, we find that even from material available on record, the complainant herself had not named any witness but one witness has been named only in the protest petition. It is further noticed that during the investigation the police has recorded the statement of number of other persons and it is not that merely on the basis of contrary opinion existing that the final report has been issued. It has duly been noticed that on the day prior to the said incident the complainant herself was involved in an incident of which no narration or explanation is available or given by her either before the police authorities or even in the present appeal despite the fact that the same finds duly mentioned in the impugned order dated 13.2.2025.

10. In the case of Vishnu Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. reported in (2019) 8 SCC 27, it is held, "before a Magistrate proceeds to accept a final report under S.173 and exonerate the accused, it is incumbent upon the Magistrate to apply his mind to the contents of protest petition and arrive at a conclusion thereafter - While the investigating officer may rest content by producing the final report, which, according to him, is the culmination of his efforts, the duty of the Magistrate is not one limited to readily accepting the final report - It is incumbent upon Magistrate to go through the materials, and after hearing the complainant and considering the contents of protest petition, finally decide the future course of action to be, whether to continue with the matter or to close the case."

11. As such, from the perusal of the material as well as the impugned order, we find that the trial court has duly considered all the aspects of the matter and it is only when there is no substantial evidence or material forthcoming regarding occurrence of cognizance offence that the final report has been accepted. In view of the above, we do not find any ground for interference. The appeal being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 1.4.2025 RKM. (Alok Mathur, J.) RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench