RAMJI v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO. AND ANOTHER
CRLA/852/2025 · 2025-03-24
Alok Mathur
Criminal Appealbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 128636 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 128636 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16739 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 852 of 2025 Appellant :- Ramji Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mani Singh,Prince Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Mani Singh, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.
2. The grievance of the appellant in the present appeal is with regard to order dated 20.1.2025 passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Lucknow thereby rejecting the application of the appellant moved under Section 173 (4) of BNSS.
3. It has been submitted that a complaint was preferred by the appellant against one Dilip Tiwari, who is running a hospital stating that there were certain money transactions between the appellant and Dilip Tiwari with regard to running of a hospital which according to the appellant was settled but Dilip Tiwari called the appellant in his hospital and demanded money and on his refusal assaulted him and abused him with caste related words.
4. Before the learned trial court from the evidence produced by the appellant it could not be demonstrated that there was no money relations between the appellant and the alleged accused of the case and there was no cogent material produced before him in support of his allegations levelled in the complaint. Accordingly, learned trial court has rejected the said application.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
order is illegal and arbitrary and has been passed without considering the evidence adduced by the appellant.
6. I have perused the record and the impugned order dated 20.1.2025 and I find that the trail court has duly considered all the evidence adduced by the appellant according to which there was no substantial material produced indicating any money transaction between the appellant and Dilip Tiwari nor any particulars of the incident were stated in any detail which could be corroborated or satisfaction could be recorded for proceeding any further on the basis of the said complaint.
7. In light of the above, I do no find any infirmity in the order dated 20.1.2025. No other material has been demonstrated or
indicated by the appellant from which it could be gathered that the trial court has not considered the entire matter and evidence available on record. The petition is accordingly dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.)
Order Date :- 24.3.2025 RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench