HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 970 of 2025 Court No. - 51 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Fazal Kareem Zafari, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Santosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, and the learned AGA for the State are present. 2. By means of the present criminal appeal under Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the appellant seeks to set aside the order dated 19-10-2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Farrukhabad in Criminal Misc. Case No. 544 of 2024, whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 173(4) of the BNSS has been rejected. 3. From perusal of the judgment, it appears that in the application submitted by the appellant there is no averment that the appellant belongs to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, nor is there any statement that the opposite parties do not belong to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe; the Court, being a Special Court constituted under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has jurisdiction only over offences specified under the said Act, and an offence under the Act is made out only when it is specifically stated that the applicant/complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe and that the accused does not belong to such category; in the absence of such specific averments, the Court held that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain the Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Fazal Kareem Zafari Counsel for Respondent(s) : Diksha Singh, G.A., Lavkush Kumar Bhatt, Santosh Kumar Pandey Sanju .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) application under Section 173(4) BNSS, and in view of these facts, found no basis for directing investigation under Section 173(4) CrPC and accordingly dismissed the petition. 4. 4. Relying upon the Three Judges Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Aleque Padamsee v. Union of India (AIR 2007 SC 684), the Full Bench of this Court in Father Thomas v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2011(1) ADJ 333 (FB) has held that even an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (now Section 173(4) BNSS) has been rejected, the remedy available to the appellant is to file a complaint case before the court concerned under Section 190 (1) (a) read with Section 200 of Cr.P.C. (now Section 210(1)(a) read with Section 223 of BNSS.) 5. In view of the above settled position of law, the proper remedy available to the appellant is to file complaint case under Section 210(1)(a) read with Section 223 of BNSS. 6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the allegations made by the complainant, the order passed by the trial court is found to be correct in the eyes of law. No interference is warranted in the present case. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal appeal is dismissed. May 5, 2026 pks CRLA No. 970 of 2025 2 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad