HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9904 of 2026 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1. Notice has not been issued to O.P. Nos.2 to 5. 2. Heard Shri Sudhir Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State. 3. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned order dated 20.07.2026 passed by learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Fatehpur in Criminal Misc. Case No.147 of 2026 (Manoj Kumar Paswan vs. Dinesh Kumar and Others), Police Station- Kotwali, District- Fatehpur, by which the complaint filed by the appellant under Section 173(4) BNSS was rejected. 4. An application under Section 173(4) of the BNSS was moved by the complainant, namely Manoj Kumar Paswan, against the accused persons, namely Dinesh Kumar, S.I. Santosh Kumar Shukla, Constable Mangla Prasad Yadav and Constable Kuldeep Singh Yadav. In the said application, it has been alleged that on 01.01.2026, an unidentified dead body was recovered and that the police personnel named therein intimidated the complainant and demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/-, threatening that, in case the said amount was not paid, the complainant would be falsely implicated in a criminal case. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned court below has erred in rejecting the application under Section 173(4) BNSS despite the material available on record disclosing cognizable offences. It is submitted that an unidentified dead body was recovered on 01.01.2026 Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Sudhir Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Manoj Kumar Paswan .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) near the Deori border, about two kilometres from the appellant's factory, and thereafter the appellant and his family were allegedly approached by the police personnel in connection with the said incident. It is further submitted that the appellant's wife was taken to the police station and an amount of Rs.20,000/- was allegedly demanded and paid under threat of false implication in a serious criminal case. Learned counsel submits that the relevant audio/video was circulated and departmental proceedings were initiated against Constables Mangla Prasad Yadav and Kuldeep Singh, who were subsequently found guilty and punished. It is argued that these circumstances could not have been brushed aside by treating the application as a pressure tactic, particularly when the appellant had approached the police authorities and thereafter invoked the jurisdiction of the court below. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that a false case, being Case Crime No.578 of 2023, under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, had earlier been registered against the complainant. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order dated 20.07.2026 be set aside and appropriate directions be issued for registration of the FIR and investigation in accordance with law. 6. Per contra, learned AGA submits that the learned court below has rightly rejected the application under Section 173(4) BNSS after considering the police inquiry report and the material available on record. It is submitted that the allegations of caste-based abuse and other alleged misconduct were not substantiated in the inquiry and that the allegation regarding payment of Rs.20,000/- was also not sufficient to warrant registration of an FIR. It is further submitted that the appellant had been involved in earlier criminal proceedings and the present application was moved as a pressure tactic against the concerned police personnel and opposite party no. 2. Reliance has been placed upon the decision in Sukhwasi v. State of U.P., 2007 (59) ACC 739 (All.-DB). It is accordingly submitted that no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned court below in rejecting the application and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. It is admitted that accused-opposite party nos.3, 4 and 5 are public servants. However, no specific allegation has been made in the application under Section 173(4) of the BNSS as to which of the accused CRLA No. 9904 of 2026 2 persons actually received the amount allegedly demanded from the complainant. It further appears false allegation has been made against the four accused persons out of which three are public servants, who are posted at concerned police station. Moreover, no specific, reliable or unequivocal caste-related words have been attributed to the accused persons in the complaint so as to establish that the alleged caste-based remarks were intentionally made with the object of insulting or humiliating the complainant solely on the ground that he belongs to SC/ST community. 8. In the case of Swaran singh Vs State, (2008) 8 SCC 435, the Hon'ble Apex Court drew a clear distinction between the expressions "public place" and "any place within public view." A private place may still be a place within public view if the incident is visible to members of the public. Conversely, merely because an incident occurs in a public building does not automatically satisfy the requirement if it is not within public view. The Supreme Court held that words such as "Chamar", though originally denoting a caste, may amount to an offence if used as a casteist abuse with intent to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Castes. The Court emphasized that words should be understood in their popular and social meaning, not merely their etymological meaning. For attracting Section 3(1)(x) (now Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s)), there must be intentional insult or intimidation; and intent to humiliate the victim because he or she belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Mere abuse or quarrel, without the requisite intention contemplated by the Act, is insufficient. The Court reiterated that criminal proceedings should continue only where the allegations disclose a prima facie offence against the particular accused. Proceedings may be quashed where the FIR does not disclose the essential ingredients against an accused. 9. In Gorige Pentaiah Vs state of AP & Ors 2009 Cri.L.J. 350, Honble Apex court held "when the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law." In the case of Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand (2020) 10 SCC 710, the Hon'ble Suprme Court held that 'a dispute that arose inside the private house of a CRLA No. 9904 of 2026 3 complainant over the possession of the land without the presence of independent public witnesses, does not satisfy the statutory threshold of Section 3(1)(r). 10. Thus, having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the material and evidence available on record, the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as discussed herein above, this court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial court has rightly rejected the application of the appellant filed under Section 173(4) BNSS. The impugned order dated 20.07.2026 does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or infirmity warranting interference by this Court. 11. The appeal, being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed. 12. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to serve a copy of this order by FAX/e-mail to the court concerned through District & Sessions Judge, Fatehpur within 48 hours. September 30, 2026 Ankit. CRLA No. 9904 of 2026 4 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANKIT VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad