Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26873 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1434 of 2025 Appellant :- Victim X Of Case Crime No. 0249/2022 Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Govt. Of U.P. Lko And 8 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Deepak Kumar,Sagun Chandra Rastogi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. In light of the proposed order to be passed, notice to the private opposite party is dispensed with. 3. By means of the present criminal appeal under Section 14 (A) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the appellant has challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 03.02.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sultanpur in Sessions Trial No. 1083 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 249 of 2022, under Sections 232, 504 & 506 IPC and Section 3 (1) (Da) & 3 (1) (Dha) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Lambhua, District Sultanpur thereby rejecting the application moved by the appellant under Sections 340 and 195 Cr.P.C. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for appellant that the appellant had filed a complaint with regard to the incident occurring on 17.07.2022 and alleged that at about 11:00 O'clock when she was sitting on the door with other family members, all the accused persons came to her house armed with sticks and sharp edged weapon and started abusing and using caste related words and due to which member of complainant were injured. It was stated that the said dispute pertains to a property. The demarcation of which has been done by the revenue team and broke the stone peg. 5. The grievance of the appellant is that even though an FIR was lodged by the police vide Case Crime No. 249 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 308, 324, 504, 506, 452 & 434 IPC and Section 3 (1) (Da) & 3 (1) (Dha) of the SC/ST Act. After investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet in the court concerned and the trial is underway. It is only during pendency of the trial that the complainant was of the view that the police had failed it perform its duties, inasmuch as, the police did not register the first information report in the relevant sections as per the complaint of the complainant and also that they have exonerated most of accused who were responsible for the said incident. In the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C., it is alleged that Section 3 (2) (v a) of the SC/ST Act and Section 427 were not added in the said FIR and also that because the witnesses belonged to a particular community they were excluded. The trial court by means of impugned order dated 03.02.2025, the counsel for applicant has only stated that the investigation has not been conducted fairly but only in accordance with the whims and fancy of the investigated officer and they have deliberately not recorded the correct facts as narrated by the complainant in the FIR and even the investigation has been shady to benefit the accused. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the court was also of the view that no offence under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is made out. In light of the aforesaid facts, the instant appeal has been filed. 6. A pointed query was made to the appellant stating to the effect that even if the allegation with regard to the botched investigation are accepted would offence under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is made out? It is submitted that the allegations pertain only to unfair investigation where learned Magistrate has sufficient power to direct the police to conduct the fair investigation. 7. This Court finds that in case the appellant is aggrieved that the relevant sections of the IPC have not been incorporated in the FIR then the grievance could have been raised before the senior most police officials or before the learned Magistrate. 8. Section 340 Cr.P.C. reads as under:- "340. Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195. (1)When upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub- section (1) of section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary,- (a) record a finding to that effect; (b) make a complaint thereof in writing; (c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction; (d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such magistrate; and (e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate. (2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 195. (3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed, - (a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint; (b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court[or by such officer of the Court as the Court may authorise in writing in this behalf.] [ Substituted by Act 2 of 2006, Section 6, for Cl. (b) (w.e.f. 16-4-2006). Prior to its substitution, Cl (b) read as under : - [(b) in by other case, by the presiding officer of the Court].] (4) In this section, "Court" has the same meaning as in Section 195." 9. The Apex Court in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, reported in (2016) 6 SCC 277, following its earlier decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409, held as follows: "2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC. If such an application under Section 156(3) CrPC is made and the Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the FIR to be registered, or if it has already been registered, he can direct proper investigation to be done which includes in his discretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending change of the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter. We have said this in Sakiri Vasu case because what we have found in this country is that the High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions praying for registration of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation." 10. From perusal of Section 340 Cr.P.C. this Court finds that none of the ingredients of Section 340 Cr.P.C. is made out even on bare perusal of the complaint and accordingly, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and order dated 03.02.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sultanpur in Sessions Trial No. 1083 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 249 of 2022, under Sections 232, 504 & 506 IPC and Section 3 (1) (Da) & 3 (1) (Dha) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Lambhua, District Sultanpur. 11. In light of the above, this appeal being devoid of merits is accordingly, dismissed. . (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Virendra Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench