HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 91 of 2025 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/applicant, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 to 4 and learned AGA for the State. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he do not wishes to file any rejoinder affidavit to counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 to 4. 3. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant/applicant with a prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 22.10.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Varanasi in Criminal Misc. Case No.563 of 2024 (Virendra Ram vs. Smt. Neha Maurya & Anr.), under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S., P.S.- Chaubeypur, District- Varanasi, 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 trial court has illegally rejected the application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. despite the specific allegations that opposite party no.2 Smt. Neha Maurya, along with co-accused Smt. Stuti Gupta and Smt. Kavita Dubey, abused the appellant by using casteist slurs and assaulted him during a discussion regarding the non-payment of salary to the school staff. It is further submitted that the allegations disclose the commission of cognizable offences, warranting registration of an FIR and a proper investigation, and that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Rajiv Chowdhury Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashutosh Kumar Tripathi, G.A., Vijaya Nand Maurya Virendra Ram .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. Learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 to 4 as well as learned AGA supports the impugned order and submits that the trial court has rightly rejected the appellant's application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S., as no prima facie cognizable offence is made out from the allegations. It is further contended that the present application has been moved by the appellant before the trial court in counterblast to an FIR, being Case Crime No.507 of 2024, registered by opposite party no.2 Smt. Neha Maurya against the appellant. It is argued that the appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 6. An application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. was moved by the appellant against three persons, namely Smt. Neha Maurya, Smt. Stuti Gupta and Smt. Kavita Dubey, all of whom are teachers in the same school where the appellant was serving as Headmaster/Principal. It is alleged that while the staff members were discussing the issue of non- payment of salary since July, 2024, opposite party no.2 Neha Maurya started uttering caste-based abusive words in a loud voice and assaulted the appellant. Admittedly, the alleged incident is stated to have taken place on 5.9.2024 at about 2:00 p.m. in the school premises, whereas the injury report was prepared on 23.9.2024. The medical report specifically records that the injuries were about 7 to 10 days old, which does not corroborate the occurrence as narrated in the application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. In respect of the same incident dated 5.9.2024, Case Crime No.587 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(2) BNS, had already been lodged by opposite party no.2 Neha Maurya against the appellant. It is further submitted that departmental proceedings were initiated against the appellant, pursuant to which he was suspended and thereafter transferred from the school, and that he also tendered an apology before the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it appears that the present proceedings has been initiated as a counterblast to the criminal case already instituted against the appellant. The conduct of the appellant also indicates an attempt to misuse the process of law. 8. 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 CRLA No. 91 of 2025 2 the appellant/applicant. The impugned order is well reasoned and does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. 9. The instant appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. 10. 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 18, 2026 RA CRLA No. 91 of 2025 3 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad