Dismissed

Suraj Patel and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2022CRLAD/240/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the condonation of delay in filing a special leave petition against a charge sheet. Subsequently, rejecting the prayer to quash the cognizance and summoning order, the Court held the complaint made out a prima facie case under SC/ST Act and IPC sections.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing appeal was condoned; petition to quash cognizance order was dismissed.

Suraj Patel and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 89 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 240 of 2022 Appellant :- Suraj Patel And 8 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Praveen Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶3

(I.A. No. 1 of 2022)

¶4

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

¶5

On due consideration to the argument advanced as well as perusal of the record and also considering the judgment of the Apex Court in Suo Moto Writ No. 3 of 2020, the delay condonation application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶6

(Order on Appeal)

¶7

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

¶8

Notice to private respondents are dispensed with.

¶9

This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the charge sheet dated 28.08.2020 in pursuance of case crime No. 257/2020, under Section 147/323/353/427/504 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Da) and 3(1)(Dha) of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Mugalsarai, District Chandauli as well as cognizance and summoning order 05.09.2020, summoning order dated 26.03.2022 passed by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Chandauli.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that bare perusal of the F.I.R. shows that there is no allegation so as to attract the offence under S.C/S.T. Act. He further submits that the injuries of the complaint of pain to the injured persons are simple, superficial and self inflicted and thus, the proceedings are nothing but abuse of process of law.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer submitting that perusal of the statements of two injured witnesses, prima facie shows the commission of offence, they are corroborated by the injury report. This is not the rarest of rare case so as to interfere with the cognizance order.

¶12

On due consideration to the argument advanced by the parties, perusal of the record and considering the F.I.R. as well as statement of the injured witnesses and other witnesses, the injury report, prima facie, commission of offence is made out, hence no illegality or perversity can be attributed to the impugned cognizance and summoning order.

¶13

The petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 22.7.2022/Bhanu

¶15

Digitally signed by BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA Date: 2022.08.03 17:30:15 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Suraj Patel and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Patel and 8 Others 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra Budholiya and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Anju Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Natthu Lal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajendra Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr. Jagtar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Karan Alias Karanveer and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another