HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5112 of 2025 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. 2. This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 12.08.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hathras in Final Report No. 157 of 2023 (Hina Devi vs. Nishu Sharma and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 97 of 2023, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 354-B, 452, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station- Hasayan, District- Hathras. By the impugned order, the protest petition filed by the appellant was rejected and the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer was accepted. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the court below has failed to appreciate the facts and law placed before it. It is further submitted that at the time of rejecting the protest petition, the trial court did not apply its judicial mind and, without properly evaluating the material placed, has illegally rejected the same. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the appeal, submitting that the Investigating Officer, after due investigation, found that the complainant was neither resident of the village in question nor her family name appeared in the voters' list or ration card, and that no independent or medical evidence supported her allegations. 5. It is further submitted that the trial court has considered in detail the protest petition, the case diary, the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., and the testimonies of the so-called independent witnesses, Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Sanjay Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Smt. Hina Devi .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) and thereafter rightly held that there was material contradiction and exaggeration in the version of the complainant and her witnesses. The trial court has further found that the allegations appeared concocted with a view to pressurize the accused, and therefore, the final report was rightly accepted. 6. I have perused the record and the impugned order. The Special Judge, upon consideration of the case diary, statements of witnesses, and the material collected during investigation, has recorded a clear finding that the prosecution case was not supported by reliable evidence, that contradictions existed in the statements of the complainant and her witnesses, and that the incident as alleged was doubtful and appeared improbable. It was, therefore, concluded that sufficient material was not available to summon the accused and proceed to trial. 7. This court does not find any perversity, illegality, or material irregularity in the reasoning adopted by the court below. The order rejecting the protest petition and accepting the final report is based on due consideration of the record, and no ground for interference is made out. 8. In view of the aforesaid, this Criminal Appeal, being devoid of merits, is dismissed. September 4, 2025 Krishna* CRLA No. 5112 of 2025 2 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad