Dismissed

Ram Dulare Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Jul 2018CRLA/3803/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal challenging a cognizance order under the SC/ST Act, the High Court held that mere belated lodging of the FIR (13-14 days) does not suffice to interfere. The court stated factual examination belongs to the trial court and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeal dismissed; observation that the order does not touch the merit of the case.

Ram Dulare Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3803 of 2018 Appellant :- Ram Dulare Yadav And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Pradeep Kumar Keshri,Hemant Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶4

By way of the instant appeal challenge has been made to quash the cognizance order dated 12.6.2018 passed by the Additional Session Judge / Special Judge SC/ST Act, Chandauli on charge sheet dated 21.5.2018 bearing charge sheet no.1 of 2018, registered as case no. 166 of 2018 (State vs. Ram Dulare and another) arising out of case crime no.66 of 2018 under Sections 323, 325, 504 IPC, Section 3 (1)(D) and 3 (1)(E) of SC / ST Act, Police Station-Sakaldiha, District-Chandauli.

¶5

Contention has been made to the extent that in this case, the FIR has been lodged belatedly after lapse of 13-14 days. No such incident, as alleged in the first information report ever took place. The first information report has been lodged out of malice against the present appellants by the informant respondent no.2 Kanhaiya Lal. The charge sheet filed against the applicants is without support of any relevant material on record and the cognizance taken by the court below vide its order dated 12.6.2018 is wholly erroneous and illegal.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. has disputed aforesaid contention by submitting that in this case, an FIR was duly lodged on 19.4.2018 and the case was investigated into by the Investigating Officer, who after investigation lodged the FIR against the applicants under Sections 323, 504, 325 IPC and Section 3 (1)(D) and 3 (1)(E) of SC / ST Act, Police Station Sakaldiha, District Chandauli. The factual aspect of the case cannot be gone into at this jucture that the FIR was belatedly lodged after a lapse of 13-14 days.

¶7

Considered the rival submissions and also perused the relevant copies brought on record in the shape of first information report and the charge sheet.

¶8

Obviously, bare perusal of the first information report itself is indicative of specific facts alleged against the appellants by the informant and the charge sheet was filed pursuant to the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer and after concluding the investigation, the charge sheet was filed under Section 323, 325, 504 IPC, Section 3 (1)(D) and 3 (1)(E) of SC / ST Act and on the basis of all the material available on record, the court below took cognizance of the offence on 12.6.2018. Merely because the FIR was beletedly lodged by 13-14 days, that ground would not be suffice to interfere in the case, at this juncture, because this requires consideration of facts and the trial court is competent enough to pass an appropriate order at appropriate stage as and when the case so ripens.

¶9

However, in view of above, this criminal appeal lacks merit and the same be dismissed. Observations made in this order shall not touch the merit of the case.

¶10

Order Date :- 20.7.2018 S Rawat

Ram Dulare Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Dulare Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dheeraj Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Roop Singh Vs State

Reeta and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vanshidhar Kharwar Vs Union of India Thru Intelligence Officer N.C.B.

Vijendra Singh Vs State

Jawahar and Others Vs State