Terminology "Court Below" May Be Replaced With "Trial Court": Allahabad High Court To Registry

The High Court was considering a Criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes Act and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the impugned order passed in a case registered under Sections 221, 132, 352, 351(2), 127(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(5a) of the SC/ST Act.

Noticing that the term “court below” does not appear to be the correct legal terminology for the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court as defined under Section 14 of the 1989 Act, the Single Bench of Justice Abdul Shahid referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Sakhawat and Another v. State of U.P. (2025) and clarified, “In view of the aforesaid order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the terminology “court below” may be replaced with “trial court.” or the concerned court, as in the present case, is the Special Court under the SC/ST Act.”

“A copy of this order, for this purpose only, may be placed before the learned Registrar General for perusal and may be considered for implementation of these directions of the Supreme Court after due procedure on the administrative side”, it added.

In Sakhawat (Supra), it has been specifically mentioned that it would be appropriate if the Registry of the Court stops referring to the Trial Courts as ‘Lower Courts’. It has been further held therein that the record of the Trial Court should not be referred to as Lower Court Record (LCR), but it should be referred to as the Trial Court Record (TCR).

Advocate Vineet Kumar Singh represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Avijit Saxena represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The complainant lodged an F.I.R. against two accused persons, Mahesh Tiwari and Ankit Shukla. It was alleged that during the tender process at the Zila Panchayat, when documents were being deposited in the tender box, the two accused along with their associates, entered the premises and approached the tender box. They allegedly instructed that water be poured into the box. Upon protest by a government employee present there, Mahesh Tiwari pushed the employee aside, while Ankit Shukla allegedly caught hold of the complainant from behind and abused him using caste-based remarks in a loud voice.

It was further alleged that Mahesh Tiwari threatened the complainant and used caste-based remarks against both the complainant and the said member, and thereafter left the spot, extending threats of future consequences. The criminal appeal before the High Court was filed against the summoning order issued after the submission of the charge sheet against the appellant, Mahesh Tiwari.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the complainant was present at the spot and had made serious allegations against the appellant under the provisions of the B.N.S. as well as the special provisions of the 1989 Act. “The consistent changes in his version and his increasing reliance on electronic evidence over his own ocular account cast serious doubt on the prosecution case”, it added.

The Bench noticed that both the complainant and the injured witness had consistently changed their versions from their earlier statements under Section 161 CrPC, as well as from the contents of the F.I.R., which was lodged on the next day of the incident by the complainant himself. It was further noticed that, as per the F.I.R., the incident occurred at 16:50 hours, whereas the CCTV footage, which formed the basis of the charge sheet, showed that at 16:52:47 hours the complainant/Chairman and Mrityunjay Pratap Ahirwar came outside their office.

The Bench also took note of the fact that the statement of the complainant suffered from inherent inconsistencies. “No person is permitted to invoke the process of law according to his own wishes, surmises, and conjectures. Such inconsistencies go to the very root of the matter. The entire incident, as narrated and recorded by the complainant in his complaint, is contradicted by his subsequent deviations from his own statements and averments based on alleged ocular evidence”, it added.

The Bench noticed that the F.I.R. was lodged on the next day of the incident, after a reasonable lapse of time from the alleged occurrence. Considering that the F.I.R. was lodged by a responsible person, who is the Chairman of the Zila Panchayat, the Bench held that the subsequent improvements and inconsistencies in the prosecution's story could not be judicially accepted. The Bench thus allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the impugned summoning order as well as the entire proceedings against the appellant.

Cause Title: Mahesh Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Another (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:91866)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Vineet Kumar Singh

Respondent: Advocate Avijit Saxena, Government Advocate

Click here to read/download Order