Dismissed

Raj Kumar @ Raj Kumar Prajapati v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC14 Jan 2018CRLP/25356/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous writ petition, the petitioner sought to quash an FIR registered under IPC and SC/ST Act provisions. The High Court of Uttar Pradesh considered arguments regarding the nature of allegations and the petitioner's involvement. The court held that a cognizable offence was disclosed and dismissed the petition, denying interim relief.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of the FIR refused; no interim relief granted.

Raj Kumar @ Raj Kumar Prajapati Vs State of U.P… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 25356 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Raj Kumar @ Raj Kumar Prajapati Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Singh Sengar,Indra Kumar Chaturvedi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ajay Sengar,Om Prakash Singh Sikarwar

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Indra Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Om Prakash Singh Sikarwar and Sri Ajay Sengar learned counsel for the caveator/respondent no.3, Sri G. P. Singh learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.

¶6

This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 22.08.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 91 of 2018, under Sections 186, 189, 353, 386, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1) (r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2) (v) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Nadi Gaon, District Jalaun.

¶7

It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is working as Gram Rojgar Sevak (Panchayat Mitra) at Block Nadi Gaon, District Jalaun since 25.10.2008 and the petitioner belongs to Kumhar Caste, which comes under O.B.C. category. The respondent no.3 is also working as Additional Program Officer in Block Nadi, District Jaluan and the petitioner is working under his sub-ordination. He argued that the respondent no.3 was pressurizing upon the petitioner to realize 5% commission from the Village Pradhan against the work performed under the MANREGA Scheme and in this respect, a complaint was also made by some of the village Pradhans of Block Nadi Gaon against respondent no.3 before the Chief Development Officer, District Jalaun at Orai on 27.07.2018, a copy of the said complaint has been annexed as Annexure No. 1 (at page no. 20) of this petition. The petitioner refused to collect any commission from village Pradhan as was compelled by the respondent no.3, on account of which the respondent no.3 became annoyed with the petitioner and gave threat to face dire consequences. In the meantime, son of Ex Blcok Pramukh and the present B.D.C. Member Smt. Shanti Devi ,namely Dimpal @ Abhimanyu Singh also requested to the respondent no.3 to make proper feeding of muster roles of the laboures and make payment of their wages without harassing to the village Pradhans. It was

¶8

further argued that respondent no.3 who was already annoyed with the petitioner suspected that the petitioner had made his complaint alongwith Dimpal @ Abhimanyu Singh, hence, he made a false complaint against the petitioner and Abhimanyu Singh before the District Magistrate on 06.08.2018 on which District Magistrate, Jalaun directed the Circle Officer, Konch to register an F.I.R. in pursuance of the same F.I.R. has been registered on 22.08.2018 at 9:45 pm. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioner that the main allegation in the impugned F.I.R. is against the co-accused Abhimanyu Singh, who is the son of Ex-Block Pramukh Nadi Gaon and the present B.D.C. Member Smt. Shanti Devi. On account of dispute with Abhimanyu Singh, the respondent no.3 has lodged the impugned F.I.R. against the Abhimanyu Singh including the petitioner as weapon to take revenge from Abhimanyu Singh but so far as the petitioner is concerned, he has been made scapegoat in the aforesaid case. The coaccused Abhimanyu Singh is a man of criminal antecedents and having a long criminal history, particulars of which have been mentioned in the F.I.R. itself. The presesnt F.I.R. is on the instigation of some rival political group of Abhimanyu Singh making false, frivolous and concocted allegations against the petitioner as well. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner to insult or intimidate with intention to humiliate the respondent no.3. nor there is any allegation to abuse him and, thus no offence under Sections 3(1) (r) & 3(1)(s) of S.C./S.T. Act is made out against the petitioner from the contents of the F.I.R and so far as the other penal offences are concerned, the same is also not disclosed against the petitioner. As regards the threat to respondent no.3 given by the petitioner who is termed as pupil (Chela) of the co-accused Abhimanyu Singh, 25.06.2018 at 10.07 hours from his mobile call, recording of which is said to be available with respondent no.3 is also false and baselsess as no threat was given by the petitioner to respondent no.3. Moreover, the petitioner and respondent no.3 are contractual employees.

¶9

Sri Om Prakash Singh Sikarwar and Sri Ajay Sengar, learned counsel for the caveator have vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. and have also pointed out that Criminal Writ-Public Interest Litigation No. 13 of 2018 (Arjun Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 7 others) has been filed by Arjun Singh in which some relief with respect to the impugned F.I.R. has been sought by him and which is likely to come up

¶10

today before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, to which learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Arjun Singh who has filed aforesaid Public Interest Litigation has not sought any relief against the petitioner nor he is party in the said P.I.L. as the same is against co-accused Abhimanyu Singh who has long criminal antecedents and petitioner has no criminal antecedents, which was not disputed by the learned counsel for the caveator.

¶11

Sri Ajay Sengar who is also appearing for caveator has submitted that the allegations made in the F.I.R. appears to be of serious nature wherein the respondent no.3, Additional Programme Officer, Block Nadi Gaon, Police Station Nadigaon, District Jalaun, who is the informant of the case, was publically insulted by the co-accused Abhimanyu Singh and the petitioner who was also working under him is a strong supporter of Abhimanyu Singh, hence his participation in the incident cannot be ruled out. He submitted that the insulting derogatory words were used by the co-accused Abhimanyu Singh and the petitioner who was a spectator had also not resisted about the act and conduct of co-accused Abhimanyu Singh, which shows that he was in collusion with Abhimanyu Singh when the insulting abusive language and derogatory words were being used by the coaccused Abhimanyu Singh. Moreover, he pointed out that the petitioner had also made false allegations against the respondent no.3 that the respondent no3. was pressuring the petitioner to realize 5% commission from the village Pradhan against the work performed under the MANREGA Scheme. The complaint which has been made by some of the village Pradhans of Block Nadi Gaon before the Chief Development Officer, District Jalaun at Orai on 27.07.18, no orders were passed by Chief Development Officer, till date, hence the said complaint against the respondent no.3 appears to be a false and frivolous one just to malign him. The impugned F.I.R. has been lodged under the orders of the District Magistrate, Jalaun.

¶12

Having considered the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the allegations made in the impugned F.I.R., we are of the opinion that it cannot said that no congnizable offence is disclosed against the petitioner hence the prayer for quashing of the same is hereby refused and the petitioner is also not entitled for any interim relief as well.

¶13

The petition lacks merit. It is accordingly dismissed.

¶14

(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 14.9.2018

¶16

Ashok Gupta

Raj Kumar @ Raj Kumar Prajapati v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar @ Raj Kumar Prajapati v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Rambhool Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Animesh Verma Vs Central Bureau of Investigation A.C.B. Ghaziabad

Gyanendra Singh @ Nathan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others