Allahabad High Court
Vijay Laxmi vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 9 March, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:47042
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8578 of 2024
Vijay Laxmi
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Gaurav Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A., Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, Ravindra Prakash Srivastava
Court No. - 51
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Pradeep Kumar Tiwari and Shri Ravindra Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 and Shri Acharya Rajesh Tripathi, learned AGA for the State.
2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant with a prayer to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 23.05.2024 passed by Exclusive Special Judge ( SC / ST Act), Basti in Criminal Misc. Case No. 439 of 2022 (Vijay Laxmi Vs Ram Bahadur and others), under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., Police Station Walterganj District Basti.
3. Briefly stated, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned trial court by the impugned order dated 23.5.2024. The learned trial court considered the allegations mentioned in the application filed by appellant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alongwith an another application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents. The learned trial court held that both parties have amicably settled their disputes earlier after an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the appellant against the present respondents. Apart from it, the learned trial court has also held that the facts in the present application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are contradictory to the facts mentioned in the earlier application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned trial court has committed gross illegality in dismissing the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant by placing reliance upon the contents mentioned in an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents. The learned trial court has transgressed its jurisdiction to consider an extraneous fact mentioned in the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The said application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondents which could not have been considered by the learned trial court. However, the learned trial court considered the said application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and has passed the impugned order by solely relying upon the averments and allegations mentioned in the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside by issuing a direction to the learned trial court to re-consider the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant independently without being influenced by the averments made in the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents.
5. Learned AGA and the learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 have submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. The learned trial court has passed the detailed and reasoned order while dismissing the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant. Hence, this criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed and there is no need to interfere in the impugned order dated 23.5.2024.
6. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.
7. It is apparent from the averments made in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. that an earlier application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was also filed by the appellant. The appellant herself has stated filing of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the respondents. It is true that particulars and details of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed earlier have not been mentioned by the appellant, but it is also true that the learned trial court has considered the said earlier application by perusing it from the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents only when the said fact was candidly admitted in the application filed by the appellant. Hence, this Court does not find that the learned trial court has committed any illegality by relying upon the facts mentioned in the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. Had it been so that the said fact regarding the earlier filing of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. not been mentioned in the application filed by the appellant, then it could have been said that the learned trial court has wrongly relied upon the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C., but this is not the case at present. The facts admitted by the appellant were relied upon the learned trial court by seeking its verification from the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. Hence, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order dated 23.5.2024.
8. This criminal appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Anil Kumar-X,J.) March 9, 2026 SK