The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on Thursday dismissed a criminal appeal challenging a summoning order in an SC/ST Act case. Observing a “serious abuse of the process of law,” the Court directed the complainant and her two daughters-in-law to refund ₹4,50,000/- in compensation they had received from the State Government, after the complainant denied having lodged the initial FIR.
Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, while dismissing the appeal filed by Rameshwar Singh and 18 others, also imposed a cost of ₹5,00,000/- on the appellants, citing the need “To deter recurrence of such manipulative conduct.”
Background
The Criminal Appeal (No. 9649 of 2024) was filed under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). The 19 appellants sought to quash the cognizance and summoning order dated 01.07.2024, issued by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Prayagraj, in Special Sessions Trial No. 174 of 2024.
This trial originated from Case Crime No. 0116 of 2021, registered for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 452, 354(kha) of the IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
Arguments and In-Court Proceedings
During a hearing on November 4, 2025, counsel for the appellants submitted that the FIR was lodged based on the thumb impression of the victim, Smt. Ram Kali (opposite party no. 2). However, counsel for Smt. Ram Kali “categorically denied” this, contending that “no such FIR had ever been lodged by the victim.”
Noting the “seriousness of the matter,” especially since the alleged victim belongs to the Scheduled Caste community, the Court apprehended that she “might have been subjected to undue influence or coercion by the appellants.” Consequently, the Court directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Yamunapar), the Investigating Officer, and Smt. Ram Kali to appear in person on November 6, 2025.
In compliance with the order, Smt. Ram Kali appeared before the High Court. According to the judgment, “On a specific query by the Court, Smt. Ram Kali categorically admitted that her thumb impression in chik had been taken on blank paper.”
This statement was contradicted by the learned Government Advocate, Mr. Patanjali Mishra. He submitted that the FIR was, in fact, lodged on 16.04.2021, based on a written complaint submitted by Smt. Ram Kali herself.
The G.A. further informed the Court that during the investigation:
- Statements of the complainant (Smt. Ram Kali) and her two daughters-in-law (Smt. Kavita and Smt. Savita) were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
- All three women were medically examined.
- Their statements were subsequently recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before a Magistrate, wherein they “unequivocally supported the prosecution version.”
It was also brought to the Court’s notice that all three victims had received compensation of ₹1,50,000/- each, aggregating to ₹4,50,000/-, from the State Government under the provisions of the SC/ST Act.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court found it “deeply disturbing that the complainant now denies having filed the FIR, despite having made statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. affirming the allegations and having availed of substantial monetary compensation under the statutory scheme meant for genuine victims of atrocities.”
Hon’ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J. observed, “Such conduct prima facie reflects a serious abuse of the process of law and a gross misuse of the benevolent provisions of the SC/ST Act.”
The judgment further stated, “The sequence of events suggests a deliberate attempt to manipulate the criminal justice process after wrongfully obtaining public funds, thereby committing a fraud upon the State.”
Final Decision and Directions
Taking a “serious view of the matter,” the High Court dismissed the criminal appeal, thereby upholding the summoning order against the 19 appellants.
The Court issued the following binding directions:
- Refund of Compensation: The victim, Smt. Ram Kali, and her daughters-in-law, Smt. Kavita and Smt. Savita, were “jointly and severally directed to refund the entire amount of Rs. 4,50,000/-… to the competent authority of the State Government forthwith.”
- Costs Imposed: A cost of ₹5,00,000/- was imposed upon the appellants. This amount is to be deposited with the High Court Welfare Fund within twenty days. In case of default, the Registrar General was directed to “initiate appropriate coercive steps for recovery.”
- Continuation of Trial: The Court directed that the proceedings in Special Sessions Trial No. 174 of 2024 shall continue. The Special Judge, Prayagraj, was directed to “proceed with the trial strictly in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the contradictory stand taken by the victim before this Court or by the observations made herein.”
The personal attendance of the DCP, Investigating Officer, and the victim was subsequently dispensed with.
