HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1404 of 2026 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1. Rejoinder affidavit filed, today in Court, on behalf of the appellant is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State. 3. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant/applicant with a prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 20.12.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kushinagar at Padrauna in Criminal Misc. Case No.632 of 2025 (Shailesh Kumar vs. Anshul Tibdewal), under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S., P.S.- Kotwali Padrauna, District-Kushinagar, whereby the application of the appellant/applicant under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. has been rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the allegations made in the application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. disclose commission of cognizable offences against opposite party no.2, who allegedly used derogatory and abusive language against the appellant and refused to pay his due wages. It is further submitted that the appellant had approached the competent court only after the police failed to take appropriate action on his complaint. The learned trial court, without properly appreciating the allegations and material available on record, has mechanically rejected the application. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is unsustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside, with a direction to proceed in accordance with law. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Himanshu Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : Amresh Bahadur Tiwari, G.A. Shailesh Kumar .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) 5. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2, as well as learned AGA, submits that the proceedings initiated by the appellant are nothing but an outcome of an employer-employee dispute. It is submitted that the appellant was working as an Assistant Manager in the resort of opposite party no.2 and, during the course of his employment, had committed misappropriation of money, on account of which his services were terminated. Being aggrieved by his removal from service and the alleged non-payment of wages, the appellant has falsely implicated opposite party no.2 by making concocted allegations. It is further submitted that no reliable medical evidence or injury report is available on record to substantiate the allegations. The learned trial court, after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly rejected the application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. Accordingly, no interference is warranted in the impugned order and the appeal is liable to be rejected. 6. In the application moved under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S., it has been stated, and is also admitted, that the appellant was working as an Assistant Manager in The Parth Resort, Basantpur, Suswaliya, Ramkola Road, Padrauna, District Kushinagar, and that a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards wages was due to opposite party no.2. It has further been stated that opposite party no.2 is the owner of the aforesaid resort and that when the appellant sought leave, opposite party no.2 became annoyed and allegedly used derogatory words against him. As per the averments made in the application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S., the alleged incident took place at about 10:30 p.m. It is, therefore, apparent that there existed a relationship of employer and employee between the appellant and opposite party no.2 and that certain wages were allegedly due, as stated in paragraph 5 of the application. It is further noteworthy that no reliable medical evidence, including any injury report, is available on record in support of the allegations. On the other hand, it has been stated on behalf of opposite party no.2 that the appellant had committed misappropriation of money during the course of his duties as Assistant Manager of the resort, on account of which his services were terminated. It is alleged that, being aggrieved by his removal from service, the appellant became annoyed and initiated the proceedings in question before the trial court. Upon consideration of the averments made in the application under CRLA No. 1404 of 2026 2 Section 173(4) B.N.S.S., as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the dispute essentially arises out of an employer-employee relationship. The allegations, on their face, do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence so as to warrant interference in the present appeal. Accordingly, no prima facie case is made out against opposite party no.2. 7. For the reasons recorded above, this Court finds that the learned trial court has rightly rejected the application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. of the appellant/applicant. The impugned order is well reasoned and does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. 8. The instant appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. 9. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to serve a copy of this order by FAX/e-mail to the court concerned through District & Sessions Judge concerned within 48 hours. September 9, 2026 RA CRLA No. 1404 of 2026 3 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad