Dismissed

Rayal Yadav and 2 Otehrs v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Jan 2020CRLA/170/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal challenging a summoning order under the SC/ST Act was dismissed. The Court held that disputed factual defenses could not be adjudicated at this stage and only a prima facie case existed, thus refusing the prayer for quashing.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing the impugned summoning order refused; directed to consider bail application if appellants surrender.

Rayal Yadav and 2 Otehrs Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 54 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 170 of 2020 Appellant :- Rayal Yadav And 2 Otehrs Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shri Ram (Rawat),Giri Ram Rawat,Indra Deo Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶3

Vakalatnama filed by Sri Satyawan Yadav, learned counsel, on behalf of the complainant/opposite party no.2 is taken on record.

¶4

Heard Sri Indra Deo Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Satyawan Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the complainant/opposite party no.2 and learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶5

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred against the impugned summoning order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Azamgarh, in Session Trial No. 213 of 2019(State of U.P. Vs. Raj Deo Chauhan @ Majnu Chauhan), arising out of Case Crime No.196 of 2018, whereby the appellants were summoned under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, IPC and Section 3(1)(Da), 3(1) (Dha) and Section 3(2)(5)(Ka) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Gambhirpur, District Azamgarh.

¶6

Learned counsel for the appellants 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.

¶7

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.

¶8

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, 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.

¶9

The prayer for quashing the impugned order is therefore refused.

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

Order Date :- 28.1.2020 VKG

Rayal Yadav and 2 Otehrs v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rayal Yadav and 2 Otehrs 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Babu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vipin Sharma @ Vaibhav Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Shahzad Vs State of U.P.

Shailendra Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Bhikhari Alias Bheekam Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.