Dismissed

Dori Lal Nishad @ Hori Lal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2021A482/17562/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings for alleged caste-based harassment and assault where Section 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 308 IPC offences were alleged. Applicant claimed ingredients of offences missing and S.C./S.T. Act inapplicable due to lack of caste admission for accused. Court examined FIR, statements, and injury report.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash entire proceedings and issuance of process dismissed. Bail to be heard expeditiously within 30 days.

Dori Lal Nishad @ Hori Lal and Another Vs State of U.P… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17562 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Dori Lal Nishad @ Hori Lal And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Rao Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Chand,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding of S.S.T No. 889 of 2020 (State Vs. Dori Lal and others) arising out of charge-sheet dated 16.05.2020 in Case Crime No. 105 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C and Section 3(2) (va) of S.C/S.T Act, Police Station Bithoor, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the Court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Kanpur Nagar with a further prayer to quash issuance of the process after taking cognizance on the charge-sheet.

¶7

The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that after registration of the F.I.R, the Investigating Officer has commenced this investigation and recorded the statement of first informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C in which the first informant had stated that she belonged to scheduled caste (chamar) but her caste certificate had not been issued. The Investigating Officer also had recorded the statement of the injured and witnesses from which no alleged offence is made out against the applicants-accused. It is mandatory to mention the caste of alleged accused but in the F.I.R no where, same is mentioned. The learned lower court did not apply judicial mind while taking cognizance on the charge-sheet. In view of the injury report, offence under Section 308 I.P.C is not made out. The basic ingredients of the offence been missing submitted to quash the chargesheet.

¶8

The learned A.G.A opposed the prayer on the ground of statement of the witnesses and the injury report, the offence alleged against the applicantsaccused is made out and the learned lower court had rightly taken the cognizance on the charge-sheet in view of the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer.

¶9

In brief, the F.I.R version is that on 03.05.2020 at 4 'O' clock, the accused Dori Lal Nishad, his son Mansingh Nishad and Manish Nishad all of the village of the informant had thrown ball upon her husband same was opposed by the husband of the informant, all the three accused persons beated her husband with lathi, danda and one blow of the lathi was inflicted on the head of her husband whereby he became unconscious. All the accused persons had hurled abuse using caste indicative word and also threatened to kill her.

¶10

The statement of the informant Sheela Devi is Annexure-2 of the affidavit in which she supported the F.I.R version and has specifically stated that she belongs to scheduled caste (chamar). Statement of injured Rajaram Kuril is Annexure-3 and statement of the witness Amit Kumar Kuril and Ravi Kuril is Annexure-4 of the affidavit. All of these witnesses have corroborated the F.I.R version. Injury report is Annexure-5 of the affidavit in which six injuries are mentioned and injury-1 is shown to be dangerous to life. C.T scan report is also part of Annexure-5 in which no fracture is shown.

¶11

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the caste of accused persons have not been specifically stated in the F.I.R and in the statement of the witnesses. The informant and the injured admittedly are scheduled caste and the accused persons with intend to humiliate in public to the husband of the informant, hurled abuse using caste indicative word and also caused injuries dangerous to life. The learned counsel for the applicant fails to submit any such document to show that the accused persons did not belong to the general caste or they belong to such caste which establish that the provisions of this act are not applicable to them.

¶12

As such in view of the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer and the charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Officer, the learned lower court had rightly taken cognizance on the charge-sheet after applying judicial mind. Accordingly this application deserves to be dismissed.

¶13

Considering the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicants, it is directed that in case applicants appear before the concerned court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, the bail application of the applicants shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with settled law laid down by the Seven Judges' decision of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in [2005 Criminal Law Journal 755] as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in [ (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 437] Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶14

With the above observations, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C is disposed of .

¶15

Order Date :- 4.1.2021 PS

Dori Lal Nishad @ Hori Lal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dori Lal Nishad @ Hori Lal and Another 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

Gulab Singh Lodhi Vs State of U.P.

Wasim Galkata Vs State of U.P.

Fahimuddin Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Kashyap Vs State of U.P.

Chandrabhushan Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Gupta @ Babu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another