Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22698 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1097 of 2025 Appellant :- Smt. Dhanpata Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Nitin Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the A.G.A. on behalf of the State. 2. By means of the present criminla appeal under Section 14 A (1) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 the petitioner has assailed the order dated 13.11.2024 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Ayodhya thereby rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. 3. It has been submitted that the appellant belongs to scheduled caste and had moved a complaint before Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Ayodhya alleging that the private respondent has fraudulently sold the land owned by the petitioner back to private respondent for consideration of Rs.60,000/- on Rs.100/- stamp paper by playing fraud of the land which is in the possession of the petitioner continuously. It has been stated that when petitioner came to know that she has been wrongly deprived of her sale considerations with regard to the said property when it was found that gata No.428 area 0.069 hectares the said land even vested with her or owned by her. When this fact came to knowledge complaint was filed and the same has been rejected by order dated dated 13.11.2024 stating that there is civil dispute between the parties which can be adjudicated before the competent civil court rather than initiating criminal proceedings. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated the same arguments. From perusal of the record it seems that there is some interference in possession of the petitioner by the private respondent consequently she entered into a sale deed by which she has sold her land to private respondent after obtaining sale consideration of Rs.60,000/- which according to her was fraudulently done considering that she was herself the owner of the said property. Aforesaid facts in the first dispute pertaining to interference in possession of the petitioner she should have availed the remedy under civil law and ought to have obtained declaration/decree from the competent court of civil jurisdiction while with regard to the second agreement it seems that she is claiming that the said agreement was forged which allegation has been made to put undue pressure on the respondent. These are the facts which can adequate be considered and decided by the civil court. 5. It is further noticed that the complainant has herself stated that she is aware that a civil suit is already filed and pending in the court. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity with the finding returned by the trial court rejecting the complaint on the ground that the same pertains to civil dispute between the parties which is being given the criminal colour by filing the said complaint. 6. With regard to the allegations that the private respondent had used caste related words, we find that an empty attempt has been made to bring the same within the purview of the offence in respect of which there is no evidence that she was abused by uttering caste related words nor the words have been intimated in the complaint and accordingly for the aforesaid reason this Court also does not find any infirmity in the order under challenge. The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 22.4.2025 RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench