Dismissed

Ram Dahin v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC24 Oct 2019CRLA/6587/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act, the appellant challenged the chargesheet and cognizance, alleging malafide intent. The court held that disputed facts cannot be adjudicated at this stage and refused the prayer for quashing, directing bail consideration upon surrender.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of orders and proceedings refused; direction for bail consideration upon surrender.

Ram Dahin Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6587 of 2019

¶3

Appellant :- Ram Dahin Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (1) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 has been preferred by the appellant against the impugned chargesheet dated 17.04.2019, cognizance dated 28.08.2019 in S.S.T. No.95 of 2019 (State Vs. Ram Dahin Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No.03 of 2019, under Sections 323, 504, 506452, 354-K IPC and Section 3 (2) (va) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Manchi, District Sonbhadra.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the FIR, it is alleged that the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste and the appellant had an evil eye on her and on 31.08.2018 at about 12:00 noon, the appellant had forcibly entered in her house and tried to outrage her modesty and the victim somehow manage to escape, however the appellant left her house threatening her of life.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant has next submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, no offence is disclosed against the appellant 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.

¶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 appellant and as such, impugned order cannot be quashed.

¶10

Moreover, all the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court. 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,

¶11

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 impugned orders as well as the entire proceedings is therefore refused.

¶13

However, it is directed that if the appellant appears and surrenders before the court below and applies for bail, his 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 :- 24.10.2019 Zafar

Ram Dahin v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Dahin 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

Jograj Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Yusuf @ Eesuf Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satpal Saini and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anuj @ Pataiya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Praveen Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of Up and Anr.

Ashok Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Anr.