HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8308 of 2025 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the impugned order dated 23.05.2025 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Pilibhit in Criminal Misc. Case No.216 of 2025 (Indravati vs. Baljeet Singh and others) under Sections 173 (4) BNSS, Police Station Kareli, District Pilibhit whereby the application under Section 173 (4) B.N.S.S. was rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned AGA for the State- respondent and perused the entire record. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a poor lady and she belongs to SC community and she started a stall in frond of her house to sell grocery items and on 03.02.2025 the respondent nos.2 to 5 threw her stall and while abusing her with caste indicating words also outraged her modesty, thereafter, the accused called the police, who forcibly brought the appellant with them due to the act of the accused as well as police, the appellant was forced to commit suicide by taking poisonous substance. He further submits that after the incident, the mother of the victim/appellant has given an application before the Superintendent of Police Pilibhit to lodge the FIR but the concerned police in collusion with the accused persons did not take any action against the opposite party nos.2 to 5. He further submits that court below while dismissing the application of the appellant has not applied its judicial mind and dismissed her application in a routine manner without considering above aspect. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ashish Kumar Gaur Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Indravati .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Perusal of impugned order shows that earlier an application was given to the Superintendent of Police by the mother of the applicant, Chameli, on 12.03.2025 against opposite party nos.2 to 5 Baljit Singh, Ninjar Singh, Jogan Singh in which proceedings under Section 126/135 BNS have already been done. Now again the applicant is making allegations that Baljit and Jogar Singh used their hands on her chest with wrong intentions and she was forced to commit suicide and she is giving an application about eating poisonous substance herself, whereas the mother of the applicant, Chameli, gave an application against the opposite party for forcefully feeding her poison, whereas the applicant herself is saying that she ate poison, thereafter, the applicant and her mother were taken to CHC Bilsanda by police no. 112 where no poisonous substance was found during treatment due to this reason, the medical officer referred the applicant to the district hospital, Pilibhit but the applicant refused to go. 6. Court below while dismissing the application of the appellant clearly observed that in the application given by the mother of the applicant Chameli Devi to the Superintendent of Police, Pilibhit, attached with the police station report wherein it has been stated that on 03.02.2025 at 11 am, the accused Baljit Singh, Ninderpal Singh and Jovan Singh forcibly fed some poisonous substance to her daughter (applicant) by holding her mouth with the intention of killing her, whereas in the application 173(4) BNSS filed by the appellant, the date of incident is mentioned as 03.02.2025 at about 11 am, fed up with the accused Baljit Singh, Ninder Singh, Jogan Singh and Santosh, she decided to take her life in the police vehicle and ate the poisonous substance kept nearby. The court while dismissing the application of the appellant founds that there is a huge contradiction in the statements mentioned in both the applications and it appears that the application 173(4) BNSS has been presented in this court by exaggerating, therefore, on the basis of allegation made in her application, court below found that prima facie no cognizable offence is made out against the opposite party nos.2 to 5 5. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the impugned order passed by the court below. The court below has rightly rejected the application of the appellant. There is no irregularity, CRLA No. 8308 of 2025 2 illegality or jurisdictional error in the order impugned. The appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. September 16, 2025 Ajeet CRLA No. 8308 of 2025 3 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad