Partly allowed

Vinod Yadav v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC20 May 2019CRLAD/681/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal challenging summoning orders under the SC/ST Act, the court refused to quash proceedings, holding that disputed facts require adjudication by the trial court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. A conditional stay and a four-week stay on coercive action were granted pending surrender.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash proceedings refused. Surrender within four weeks granted; bail to consider expeditiously. Coercive action stayed for four weeks.

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

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 681 of 2019

¶3

Appellant :- Vinod Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Chandra Dutt Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.1 of 2019

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

Cause shown for delay in filing the appeal is to the satisfaction of the Court.

¶8

Delay is condoned. This application stands allowed.

¶9

Order on appeal

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶11

This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (1) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act") has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 20.12.2017 as well as entire proceeding in Special S.T. No.254 of 2017 (State Vs. Vinod Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No.429 of 2017, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)W(1) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar.

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that no offence is made out against the appellant and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A., contended that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned trial court.

¶14

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the appellant. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the appellant has got right of discharge under Sections 227, 239, 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.

¶15

The prayer for quashing the proceeding is refused.

¶16

However, it is directed that in case the appellant appears and surrenders before the court below within four weeks from today and apply for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in the light of the law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P . in accordance with law after hearing the public prosecutor.

¶17

For a period of four weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the appellant. However, in case, the appellant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.

¶18

With the aforesaid directions, this appeal is finally disposed of.

¶19

Order Date :- 20.5.2019 Mini

Vinod Yadav v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Yadav 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

Sattar Khan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jay Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Umakant Aheer Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sundar and Others Vs State of U.P.

Ashok Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Monu Singh Vs State of U.P.