Allowed

Sonu @ Gyanendra Saraswat v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2021A482/13075/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under section 482 Cr.P.C., the court quashed criminal proceedings for alleged misconduct under the SC/ST Act and IPC. The court held that the proceedings constituted an abuse of process of law due to a prior compromise and lack of substantive medical evidence contrary to FIR allegations.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the charge sheet dated 28.12.2019, the order of taking cognizance dated 18.3.2020, and the entire proceedings of S.S.T. No. 749 of 2020.

Sonu @ Gyanendra Saraswat Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13075 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Sonu @ Gyanendra Saraswat Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Bharat Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Darwari Lal

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record.

¶7

The present application has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of S.S.T. No. 749 of 2020 (State vs. Sonu Sarswat and others), pending in the court of Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Badaun, arising out of Case Crime No. 0371 of 2019 under sections 323, 504 IPC and section 3(2) 5A of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station Alapur, District Badaun and also quash the impugned charge sheet dated 28.12.2019 as well as impugned order of taking cognizance dated 18.3.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Badaun.

¶8

The counsel for the applicant has argued that the entire proceedings initiated and being tried against the applicant and nothing but an abuse of process of law. He further argues that even as per the First Information Report the incident allegedly took place on 20.7.2019 and the FIR was lodged on 01.11.2019 at Police Station Alapur, District Badaun under sections 147, 323, 504 read with

¶9

section 3(2) (V-A) of SC/ST Act. In support of his contention, he argues that the entire dispute giving rise to the present case has genesis in a case instituted by one Smt. Shyama Devi, mother of student, namely, Aman, who had lodged an FIR against the opposite party no. 2, however, subsequently, a compromise was arrived at between the opposite party and the said Smt. Shyama Devi in which a compromise deed was drawn and the applicant herein was a witness to the said compromise. A copy of the compromise is on record as Annexure-8 to the application.

¶10

A perusal of the FIR makes it clear the thrust of the allegations were that despite a compromise having taken place in between the opposite party no. 2 and the said Smt. Shyama Devi, to which the present applicant is a witness, the said compromise was not being acted upon and, on that basis, the FIR was lodged.

¶11

A plain reading of the averments made in the FIR prima facie do not disclose any offence under sections 323, 504 IPC or Section 3(2) )(V-A) of SC/ST Act. In fact, the allegations disclose that the compromise was got signed and was not done by free will of opposite party and now the same is not being acted upon. On the said allegations, an FIR came to be registered being FIR No. 0371 of 2019 on 01.11.2019. It is common ground that no medical examination was got done by the opposite party no. 2 by any public health care system or through the Government Hospital.

¶12

In the counter affidavit, the counsel for the

¶13

opposite party no. 2 has argued that as the medical examination was not being done by the Government Authorities, the opposite party no. 2 got himself medically examined from a private hospital, namely, Ashoka Hospital. A report of the said Ashoka Hospital has been filed along with counter affidavit as Annexure No. CA-1.

¶14

A bare perusal of the said report does not even refer to any injury leave along grievous injury. The counsel for the opposite party no. 2 fairly states that even he is unable to read the report issued by the said Ashoka Hospital. He has placed reliance on the evidence given during the course of investigation before the police authorities by the witnesses being Headmaster Mohd. Imran Alam. The statement is on record as Annexure 5 to the application. He has further placed reliance upon the statement of Smt. Manorama Rathore, who is part of Annexure No. 5 to the application. He has also placed reliance upon the statement of Chandrashekhar as well as statement of one Dr. Amlendra Kumar Biswas and to argued that on the basis of the statements so made, the investigation was rightly done and the charge sheet was rightly filed against the applicant.

¶15

Upon hearing the counsel for the parties, it is necessary to refer to the averments made in the FIR (Annexure-1 to the writ petition. A perusal whereof shows that a reference has been given to a compromise done on 31.8.2019 and it has in fact been prayed that on the basis of the said compromise, the applicant be given justice. In sum

¶16

and substance, the informant wanted the parties to act upon the said compromise.

¶17

It is equally necessary to refer to the statement given by the Head Master Mohd. Imran Alam, which is contained as Annexure-5, which goes to show that in fact the applicant helped in taking the students for medical care to the doctor. There is nothing stated by the said witness which fact in any way substantiate the charge levelled against the applicant in which the FIR was filed and the charge sheet was also filed.

¶18

A perusal of the record as filed also shows that a compromise has in fact been taken place in respect of a complaint made by Smt. Shyama Devi. Thus, on a composite reading of the averments made, it is prima facie clear that the FIR has been lodged in a mala-fide manner and there is a clear abuse of process of law.

¶19

Considering the fact that the entire proceedings initiated against the applicant have been held to be abuse of process of law. The proceedings are liable to be quashed in exercise of powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. As such the charge sheet dated 28.12.2018 as well as cognizance dated 18.3.2020 and the proceedings of SST No. 749 of 2020 (State vs. Sonu Saraswat and others) pending in the court of the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Badaun, arising out of Case Crime No. 0371 of 2019 under sections 323, 504 IPC and section 3(2) 5A Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station Alapur,

¶20

District Badaun are hereby quashed.

¶21

The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.

¶22

Order Date :- 6.1.2021 Puspendra

Sonu @ Gyanendra Saraswat v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu @ Gyanendra Saraswat 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Salman and 7 Others Vs State of Up

Bhura @ Mohd. Israil and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pankaj and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bachcha Yadav and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra and 10 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Sagar Yadav and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another