Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:142999 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3687 of 2022 Appellant :- Sanjay Kumar Bhartiya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ali Jamal Khan,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- Anil Kumar Mishra,G.A. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. Mr Anil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 is also present. 2. This appeal under Section 14-A(1) of SC/ST Act is filed against the judgement and order dated 03.1202021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Mirzapur whereby the protest application of the appellant has been rejected and the final report filed by the police in Case Crime No. 156 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 120-B IPC and Section 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Mirzapur has been accepted. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned Trial Court is wholly illegal and against the material on record. It is further submitted that the opposite parties/co accused persons had committed the aforesaid crime with a common intention and in a pre-planned manner with a prior meeting of mind. It is further submitted that the statement of complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. nor the statements of eye witnesses were correctly recorded by the Investigating Officer. It is further submitted that the trial court without application of mind in a most mechanical manner dismissed the protest petition filed by the appellant and accepted the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. 5. I have gone through the impugned order. The applicant in his protest petition stated that statements of other witnesses were not taken by the Investigating Officer. However, the applicant did not mention any such name in his protest petition. During the investigation, apart from the applicant- Sanjay Kumar Bhartiya, statements of other witnesses such as Shani Kumar, Vishnu Kumar Sharma, Sanjay Singh, Keshav Prasad, Roshan Ali, Bablu, etc., were recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 6. Upon examining the record, it appears that the opposite party/accused in order to create pressure, had initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act at Kotwali City police station, which was registered. After finding sufficient evidence in that case, proceedings were initiated against the applicant. It seems that the applicant filed this protest petition before the court with the intention of creating pressure due to the said case. 7. Accordingly, the appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 RavindraKSingh Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad