High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Ravi Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A. G. A. on behalf of the State.

2. By means of the present appeal under Section 14 (1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 the appellant has challenged order dated 4.3.2025 passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Sitapur in case No.398/2024 under Section 173 (4) of B.N.S.S. wherein he has rejected the application preferred by the appellant.

3. It has been submitted that with regard to the incident occurred on 9.4.2024 an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was moved by mother of the appellant alleging that the appellant was taken by opposite party N.2 to Haridwar and against her wishes he had performed marriage and also had physical relationships. Accordingly, with regard to appellant being missing from her home an application was moved to the police. Subsequently the appellant appeared before the court concerned where her statement was recorded where she categorically stated that she had been taken to Haridwar along with Deepak Verma with her consent and she denied that she was taken forcefully by him. She further denied that Deepak Verma has sexually assaulted the appellant and all the allegations leveled in the complaint preferred by the mother are false. It is in aforesaid circumstances that the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was rejected by means of order dated 31.2.2024 by the Special Judge (S.C.S.T.) Act,. Sitapur in Misc. Case No.135 of 2024. Subsequently, it seems that another application under Section 173 (4) BNSS was preferred which was rejected for want of prosecution on 27.9.2024 and, therefore, another application was moved on 10.10.2024.

4. The present proceedings have arisen by filing a fresh application on 10.10.2024 by the appellant before the S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Sitapur. In the said complaint the appellant has again stated that on 9.4.2023 Jyoti Verma had given a mobile phone to the appellant pursuant to which Lavkush Verma took her on motorcycle to the resident of one Nisha, a relative of Deepak Verma where she was forcefully sexually assaulted by Deepak Verma on account of false promise of marriage. From there they had taken her to Haridwar and during all this period she was forcefully sexually assaulted. After she had returned she gave a statement in favour of the accused but subsequently again she stated that she was sexually and physically tortured and they have declined to marry her and consequently a fresh application was moved. It is on the present application that the trial court by means of the impugned order 4.3.2025 opined that the entire allegations are false and fictitious and even previously the appellant filed false and frivolous criminal complaints. While rejecting the application the trial court has dully considered that on previous occasion where the proceedings were initiated at the behest of her mother and subsequently the appellant had given statement in the court that neither was she taken away by force nor was she sexually assaulted against her consent and it is on her statement that the proceedings were concluded and the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was rejected. For the same complaint again a fresh application has been moved and accordingly the court has opined that the application is nothing except the abuse of the process of law.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present allegations pertain to new set of facts and is not an outcome of the previous order under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.

6. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, has opposed the appeal. He has vehemently submitted that a perusal of the complaint preferred by the appellant 10.10.2024 would indicate that no fresh facts are forthcoming and the entire allegations rest on the previous incidents which commenced from 9.4.2024 and accordingly submits that there is no infirmity in the order passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

7. I have heard rival contentions of the parties and perused the records.

8. It is noticed that on previous occasion when same allegations were levelled at the behest of the mother of the appellant when she moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The proceedings were concluded and culminated on the statement of the appellant before the court where she denied all the allegations that had categorically denied that she was forcefully taken from her home on motorcycle to Deepak Verma. She has stated that she had herself gone with him and performed marriage and also maintained sexual relations with him. It is in aforesaid circumstances that by means of order dated 7.6.2024 the application was rejected and again on the basis of same allegations the proceedings have been sought to be initiated against the private respondents.

9. A perusal of the impugned order dated 4.3.2025 clearly indicates that the court has examined the entire facts minutely and has held that the application is nothing except an abuse of the process of law. The court has duly considered the previous facts as well as the statement given by the appellant and concluded the proceedings on the basis of the statements given by the appellant and again it was of the considered view that the statement been given by the appellant stating that the said incident as stated by her mother did not occur and the facts were false. Even fresh proceedings at her behest stating that the proceedings are other wise correct cannot be entertained. In case, such proceedings are entertained at the behest of the appellant then sanctity of statements given before the court would be seriously doubted and shall cause prejudice in criminal proceedings. Accordingly, we do not find any ground for interference with the findings recorded by the trial court in its order dated 4.3.2025.

10. In light of the above, we do not find any ground for interference. The appeal is devoid of merits and is according dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 5.5.2025 RKM. RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Ravi Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A. G. A. on behalf of the State.

2. By means of the present appeal under Section 14 (1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 the appellant has challenged order dated 4.3.2025 passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Sitapur in case No.398/2024 under Section 173 (4) of B.N.S.S. wherein he has rejected the application preferred by the appellant.

3. It has been submitted that with regard to the incident occurred on 9.4.2024 an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was moved by mother of the appellant alleging that the appellant was taken by opposite party N.2 to Haridwar and against her wishes he had performed marriage and also had physical relationships. Accordingly, with regard to appellant being missing from her home an application was moved to the police. Subsequently the appellant appeared before the court concerned where her statement was recorded where she categorically stated that she had been taken to Haridwar along with Deepak Verma with her consent and she denied that she was taken forcefully by him. She further denied that Deepak Verma has sexually assaulted the appellant and all the allegations leveled in the complaint preferred by the mother are false. It is in aforesaid circumstances that the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was rejected by means of order dated 31.2.2024 by the Special Judge (S.C.S.T.) Act,. Sitapur in Misc. Case No.135 of 2024. Subsequently, it seems that another application under Section 173 (4) BNSS was preferred which was rejected for want of prosecution on 27.9.2024 and, therefore, another application was moved on 10.10.2024.

4. The present proceedings have arisen by filing a fresh application on 10.10.2024 by the appellant before the S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Sitapur. In the said complaint the appellant has again stated that on 9.4.2023 Jyoti Verma had given a mobile phone to the appellant pursuant to which Lavkush Verma took her on motorcycle to the resident of one Nisha, a relative of Deepak Verma where she was forcefully sexually assaulted by Deepak Verma on account of false promise of marriage. From there they had taken her to Haridwar and during all this period she was forcefully sexually assaulted. After she had returned she gave a statement in favour of the accused but subsequently again she stated that she was sexually and physically tortured and they have declined to marry her and consequently a fresh application was moved. It is on the present application that the trial court by means of the impugned order 4.3.2025 opined that the entire allegations are false and fictitious and even previously the appellant filed false and frivolous criminal complaints. While rejecting the application the trial court has dully considered that on previous occasion where the proceedings were initiated at the behest of her mother and subsequently the appellant had given statement in the court that neither was she taken away by force nor was she sexually assaulted against her consent and it is on her statement that the proceedings were concluded and the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was rejected. For the same complaint again a fresh application has been moved and accordingly the court has opined that the application is nothing except the abuse of the process of law.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present allegations pertain to new set of facts and is not an outcome of the previous order under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.

6. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, has opposed the appeal. He has vehemently submitted that a perusal of the complaint preferred by the appellant 10.10.2024 would indicate that no fresh facts are forthcoming and the entire allegations rest on the previous incidents which commenced from 9.4.2024 and accordingly submits that there is no infirmity in the order passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

7. I have heard rival contentions of the parties and perused the records.

8. It is noticed that on previous occasion when same allegations were levelled at the behest of the mother of the appellant when she moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The proceedings were concluded and culminated on the statement of the appellant before the court where she denied all the allegations that had categorically denied that she was forcefully taken from her home on motorcycle to Deepak Verma. She has stated that she had herself gone with him and performed marriage and also maintained sexual relations with him. It is in aforesaid circumstances that by means of order dated 7.6.2024 the application was rejected and again on the basis of same allegations the proceedings have been sought to be initiated against the private respondents.

9. A perusal of the impugned order dated 4.3.2025 clearly indicates that the court has examined the entire facts minutely and has held that the application is nothing except an abuse of the process of law. The court has duly considered the previous facts as well as the statement given by the appellant and concluded the proceedings on the basis of the statements given by the appellant and again it was of the considered view that the statement been given by the appellant stating that the said incident as stated by her mother did not occur and the facts were false. Even fresh proceedings at her behest stating that the proceedings are other wise correct cannot be entertained. In case, such proceedings are entertained at the behest of the appellant then sanctity of statements given before the court would be seriously doubted and shall cause prejudice in criminal proceedings. Accordingly, we do not find any ground for interference with the findings recorded by the trial court in its order dated 4.3.2025.

10. In light of the above, we do not find any ground for interference. The appeal is devoid of merits and is according dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 5.5.2025 RKM. RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench