Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40960 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1561 of 2018 Appellant :- Gudiya Devi Alias Saleema Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Pawan Kumar Sharma Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. 1. Case called out in revised list. 2. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent no.2 to oppose this appeal filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989, challenging the order dated 05.06.2018, whereby the application of the appellant filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 3. By the impugned order dated 05.06.2018, the trial court dismissed the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. preferred by the appellant. 4. As per the contents of the said application, the house of the opposite parties and appellant are adjacent to each other. On 10.03.2018 with intention to construct a permanent wall, the opposite parties the mango and teak trees, situated in the courtyard of appellant were cut down by the opposite parties and they started construction of wall. When the appellant raised objection to the same, they abused her with her caste and assaulted her with danda and when she entered into her house to save her life, they also entered into her house and assaulted her. This application further indicates that the appellant informed the Superintendent of Police, Bahraich Hardoi about the incident through registered post, however, the FIR was not lodged. 5. After considering the allegations levelled in the application, the trial court called for a report from the police station concerned, but it was reported that no case has been registered. 6. The trial court thereafter taking note of the allegations levelled in the application preferred under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. rejected the application vide order impugned dated 05.06.2018, which reads as under:- "पप्रारररननी गगुडडियप्रा ददेवनी उरर सलनीमप्रा कदे पप्राररनप्रा -पत्र अन्तगरत धप्रारप्रा १५६ (३)-द०प०ससं० पर सगुनप्रा जजो इस आशय सदे पस्तगुत डकयप्रा गयप्रा हहै डक डवपकनीगण कप्रा घर अगल -बगल हहै। डदनप्रासंक १०-०३- २०१८ कजो डवपकनीगण नदे पक्ककी दनीवप्राल बनप्रानदे ककी डनयत सदे पप्रारररननी कदे सहन मम लगदे आम व सप्रागगौन कदे पदेडि कटवप्रा कर दनीवप्रार खडप्रा करनदे लगदे। मनप्रा करनदे पर जप्राडत ससूचक गप्रारलयप्रासं दनी और डिसंडिदे सदे मप्रारनदे लगदे। जप्रान बचप्रानदे कदे रलए घर मम घगुसदे तजो घर मम घगुस कर मप्रारप्रा । रप्रानदे सदे आख्यप्रा मसंगप्रायनी गयनी। कजोई अडभियजोग पसंजनीकक त नहनी हहै। पप्राररनप्रा-पत्र मम इस बप्रात कप्रा उलदेख डकयप्रा गयप्रा हहै डक पप्रारररननी कदे सहन मम लगदे आम व सप्रागगौन कदे पदेडि कप्राट रलयप्रा रजसककी कजोई रजोटजो दप्रारखल नहहीं डकयप्रा गयप्रा हहै। यहप्रासं यह उलदेखननीय हहै डक दप्रारखल डचडकत्सनीय आख्यप्रा डदनप्रासंक १३-०३-१८ ककी हहै और जजो तनीन चजोटम दशप्रारयनी गयनी हहै , वदे इस पकक डत ककी नहनी हहै डक लप्राडिनी, डिसंडिदे सदे मप्रारनदे सदे आयनी हहों। तनीन लजोगहों दप्रारप्रा मप्रार पनीट कप्रा करन डकयप्रा गयप्रा हहै , जबडक मप्रात्र तनीन चजोटम पप्रायनी गयनी हहै। इससदे भिनी अडभियजोजन करप्रानक सत्य पतनीत नहहीं हजोतप्रा हहै। उपरजोक्त सदे पप्राररनप्रा-पत्र कदे तथ्य डवश्वसननीय पतनीत नहहीं हजोतदे हहै। अततः पप्राररनप्रा -पत्र डनरस्त डकयप्रा जप्रातप्रा हहै।" 7. Impeaching the order under appeal dated 05.06.2018, learned counsel for the appellant says that in dismissing the application preferred by the appellant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the trial court committed error of fact and law both, as the case was made out against the accused. As such, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter. 8. Opposing the present appeal, learned AGA says that the impugned order dated 05.06.2018 is not liable to be interfered with by this Court for the reason that it appears from the application preferred by the appellant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. itself that the appellant failed to establish her case, as pleaded and therefore the court rejected the application preferred by the appellant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It appears that to settle some score, the application preferred by the appellant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which is nothing but an abuse of process of law. The prayer is to reject the instant appeal. 9. Considered the aforesaid and perused the record. 10. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid including the fact(s), which appears from the record and also from the application preferred by the appellant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., this Court is of the view that the appellant failed to establish her case before the court concerned and accordingly this Court finds that no interference in the matter is required by the Court. 11. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Cost made easy. Order Date :- 17.7.2025 Anand/- Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench