Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26310 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1316 of 2025 Appellant :- Smt. Reeta Devi @ Reeta Gautam Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Rama Kant Dixit,Atul Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Rama Kant Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. In the light of proposed order, notice to private respondents is dispensed with. 2. By mans of present criminal appeal under Section 14A(1) of the SC/ST Act the appellant has assailed order dated 13.12.2024, passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lucknow, in F.R. No. 1143 of 2023 - Reeta Gauram Vs. Sachin Srivastava and Others, arising out of Case Crime No. 96 of 2023, under Sections 323, 447, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1) (r), 3(2)(5a) of SC/ST Act, Police Station - Bijnor, District - Lucknow. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that first information report was lodged by the appellant on 21.04.2023, alleging that on 14.01.2023, the accused persons had come to the field of the appellant to take illegal possession and they started abusing the complainant and also used related words to the complainant and family members, the accused persons has further threatened the complainant and subsequently forcibly entered the house and damaged the house hold goods. In pursuance to the FIR, investigation was carried out and final report was filed and accordingly on the information being received the appellant has filed the present appeal. 4. Against the final report, the appellant had filed a protest petition, wherein the allegations made in the FIR were reiterated, but there is no other material which was mentioned in the protest petition, on the basis of which, the facts as stated in the FIR can be verified and accordingly, the trial Court by means of impugned order dated 13.12.2024, rejected the protest petition and final report was accepted. 5. The trial Court while rejecting the protest petition has duly considered the FIR as well as material which was produced in the form of Police report pursuant to the investigation. During investigation Nannhe Lal, Vinod Kumar and Pratima had given their statement and have denied the incident. During investigation contrary facts were discovered and infact it was noticed that the complainant herself had purchased/taken certain jewellery from the accused persons and when the accused persons had asked for money for the same, she has resisted and in order to evade payment of the said money, false FIR was registered. 6. Accordingly, during investigation allegations were found to be incorrect and final report was filed. The protest petition does not counter any of the material which has come on record during investigation carried out by the Police and accordingly this Court finds that the trial Court has duly accepted the final report submitted by the Police and no other material is available on record, on the basis of which the trial Court could have taken any other view then what has been taken. 7. In view of above, this Court do not find any material in the protest petition worth of being considered by the trial Court, detailing the reasons against the decision taken by the trial Court for accepting the final report filed by the Police. 8. In the light of above, this Court do not find this a fit case for interference. The appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed. Order Date :- 29.4.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench