Dismissed

Jugul Pandey @ Phauji and 4 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC30 Sept 2019CRLA/6098/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge dismissed the criminal appeal seeking quashing of the cognizance order in a case involving offences under the SC/ST Act and IPC. The court held that facts were disputed and a prima facie case existed, refusing to quash the order.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash the cognizance order was refused; bail to be considered if appellants surrender.

Jugul Pandey @ Phauji and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6098 of 2019

¶3

Appellant :- Jugul Pandey @ Phauji And 4 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Pankaj Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This criminal appeal under section 14-A (1) of SC/ST Act has been filed by the appellants with the prayer to quash the cognizance order dated 23.7.2019 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, District Chitrakoot taking the cognizance upon the charge sheet dated 28.4.2019 and issued summons against the appellant Nos.1 and 3 for offences under section 342, 354, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(2) (5) of SC/ST Act and against the applicant No.2 taking the cognizance for the offence under section 342, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act and against appellant Nos. 4 and 5 taking the cognizance for the offence under section 342, 504, 506 I.P.C. in S.S.T.No. 43 of 2019, State Vs. Shiv Narayan and others, arising out of case crime No. 178 of 2018, under section 342, 504, 506, 354 I.P.C. and 3(2) (V) SC/ST Act. P.S. Pahadi, District Chitrakoot pending in the court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act Chitrakoot.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the FIR, it is alleged that on 24.5.2018 at about 8.00 a.m. the appellants had forcibly taken away the victim Hiramani and detained her and committed rape upon her. The victim belongs to Scheduled Caste and specific allegation in the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. of committing rape upon her has also been made against the appellants.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that from the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, no offence is disclosed against the appellants and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention, as such, the cognizance order be quashed.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, prima facie offence is clearly made out against the appellants and as such, the cognizance order cannot be quashed.

¶10

Moreover, all the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated

¶11

upon by this Court under Section 14-A(1) of SC/ST Act. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.

¶12

The prayer for quashing the cognizance order is therefore refused.

¶13

However, it is directed that if the appellants appear/surrender before the court below and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

¶14

With the aforesaid observations, this criminal appeal is finally disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 30.9.2019

¶16

Jugul Pandey @ Phauji and 4 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jugul Pandey @ Phauji and 4 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Charan Chauhan and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dev Prasad and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sadhu Saran Gupta and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Indrapal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikas Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Upadhyay and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another