Allahabad High Court: In a revision petition filed against the impugned order wherein the Special Judge (SC/ST Act) rejected the petitioner’s complaint under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) holding lack of cogent evidence against the accused persons, the Single Judge Bench of Harvir Singh, J., rejected the petition, holding that there was no infirmity in the impugned order. Noting that the literal abusive language had been mentioned in the witness statements and impugned order, the Court directed that all judicial officers shall avoid the usage of such language in the pleadings.
Background
Allegedly, an altercation took place between the parties, wherein the petitioner was assaulted and her mangalsutra was snatched on gunpoint by one of the accused persons (respondents 2 to 7). As per the medical report, she suffered some simple injuries.
The petitioner contended that the Special Judge failed to consider the petitioner’s statement as well as the witness statements recorded under Section 202 CrPC, thereby dismissing the complaint without appreciating the entire evidence.
Analysis
Upon the perusal of the record, the Court stated that the statements of all three witnesses lacked coherence and continuity to form a prima facie case against respondent 2. The other witnesses also did not support the petitioner’s statement. Therefore, the Court held that mere allegations made against the person were not sufficient, unless other cogent material was available on record.
Moreover, the Court noted that the medical report suggested that all the injuries were simple in nature, but it had not come on record which weapon they had been caused by. The allegations of assault had just been made against the respondent 2, and there was no material on record to show that the order passed by the Special Judge was illegal and arbitrary.
Thus, the Court rejected the petition, holding that there was no infirmity in the impugned order and no interference was required.
However, upon perusal of the complaint, impugned order, and the witness statements, the Court noted that abusive language and literal words were used in the order passed by the Special Judge, as well as in the petitioner’s statement.
Noting this, the Court stated that the Supreme Court, as well as the Court, had directed, from time to time, that decent and normal language should be used while passing the judicial order or in recording the statements of witnesses. It appeared that the Special Judge did not pay any attention to these guidelines while getting the petitioner’s statement recorded or passing the impugned order.
“The recording of filthy language and abusive words in the pleadings is unwarranted and inappropriate. Hence, it is directed that not only the individual officer but all judicial officers of the State Judiciary shall take due precautions to avoid the use of such abusive or filthy language and words.”
Remarking that the decorum and dignity of the post appeared to reflect in the language used in the judicial orders, the Court directed that this order be circulated amongst all judicial officers of the District Courts of Uttar Pradesh. The judicial officers shall be careful in the future, avoid the usage of such language, and take appropriate precautionary measures while discharging their duties.
[Santreepa Devi v. State of UP, Criminal Revision No. 4710 of 2024, decided on 10-09-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Rajiv Chowdhury
For the respondent: Government Advocate
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
