Allowed

Ishwar Chand v. State of U.P Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and 10 Others

Allahabad HC8 Aug 2023/272/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal under the SC/ST Act against the Special Judge's order rejecting an interim remedy application. The Court quashed the lower order for being mechanical and perverse, noting that any person can approach the court, not just the victim. The appeal was allowed and the case remitted.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 31.08.2021 is set aside and reversed; matter remitted to Court below to consider afresh within three months.

Ishwar Chand Vs State of U.P Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:52425

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 272 of 2022

¶4

Appellant :- Ishwar Chand Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. The Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. And 10 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Nijam Ahamad Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Bhup Chandra Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶6

The matter is taken up in the revised call of list.

¶7

Heard Sri Nijam Ahamad, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ashok Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State. Sri Bhup Chandra Singh, learned counsel for the private opposite parties is not present even in the revised call of list.

¶8

This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (1) of The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred to quash the impugned order dated 31.08.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Ambedkar Nagar in Misc. Case No.34 of 2021; Ishwar Chand Vs. Arvind and others, Police Station Katka, District Ambedkar Nagar, whereby application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved by the appellant was rejected.

¶9

On 17.07.2023, this Court has passed the following order:-

¶10

"Heard Shri Nijam Ahmad, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Ashok Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No. 1.

¶11

Learned counsel for the private opposite parties is not present even in the revised call and despite service of notice for taking upon the case.

¶12

Accordingly, as a last opportunity, ten days' and no more time is allowed to the the learned A.G.A. as well as to the learned counsel for the private opposite parties to file counter affidavit. One week, thereafter, is allowed to the learned counsel for the appellant to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶13

Put up this case on 08.08.2023 before appropriate Court."

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order was passed in a mechanical manner and without considering the material evidence on record. He further submits that the ground of rejection taken by the learned court below in the rejection order that the victim did not approach for lodging of the first information report by moving application under

¶15

Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is perverse, whereas, it is not mandatory in law that the victim may approach the court by moving application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. rather anybody on her behalf can approach the court for moving application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Thus, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order be set aside and the instant appeal be allowed.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. for the State opposes the prayer for quashing of the aforesaid impugned order and submits that the court below has rightly passed the impugned order and no interference is required by this Court. Thus, he submits that the instant appeal be rejected.

¶17

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also considering the ground taken for rejection of the impugned order dated 31.08.2021 which appears to be unjustified and perverse as the court below has not considered the evidence available on record and made an averment that application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the husband of the victim and the victim did not approach the court for lodging of first information report. Any one can approach the court on behalf of the victim to lodge first information report by moving application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31.08.2021 is passed without application of mind and the same is liable to be set aside and reversed.

¶18

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 31.08.2021 is set aside and reversed .

¶19

The matter is remitted back to the Court below concerned to consider it afresh and the Court below is also directed to pass an order afresh on the application moved by the husband of the victim under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in accordance with law after hearing both the parties preferably within a period of three months without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties from the date of filing of the certified copy of this order, unless there is some legal impediment or unless there is any order passed by the higher court staying the proceedings of the case.

¶20

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

¶21

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the

¶22

authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶23

Order Date :- 8.8.2023 Saurabh

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ishwar Chand v. State of U.P Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and 10 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ishwar Chand v. State of U.P Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and 10 Others

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

Babu Lal Vs State of U.P.

Mani Ram Dubey and 7 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Ram Sewak and Another Vs State of U.P.

Ram Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Ateequr Rahman Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Gjraj Singh Vs State of U.P