Dismissed

Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 May 2023CRLA/1007/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The criminal appeal seeking to quash the charge-sheet and summoning order in a case under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was dismissed. The Single Judge held that the existence of a civil dispute does not vitiate the criminal trial, dismissed the request to quash, and directed the Special Court to deal with the bail application if the appellant surrenders.

What did the court decide?

The request to quash the summoning order and charge-sheet is refused; appellant directed to appear for regular bail.

Ram Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 81

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1007 of 2023

¶3

Appellant :- Ram Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Singh Bais Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mashaluddin Shah

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Ashok Kumar Singh Bais, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Mashaluddin Shah, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellant- Ram Kumar with the prayer to allow the present criminal appeal and set-aside the order dated 13.12.2022 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Saharanpur in Sessions Case No. 2973 of 2022 (State Vs. Ram Kumar) under Sections 406,452,354,504 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (Dha), 3 (2)/5-A of SC/ST Act, Police Station Badgaon, District Saharanpur arising out of impugned charge-sheet dated 19.10.2022.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellant while drawing the attention of this Court towards the first information report as well as the statement of the prosecutrix/victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. submits that even if the allegations as levelled in the first information report and the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are taken on its face, no criminality may attached with any conduct of the appellant, however, after regarding the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr. P.C., after many days the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein, she had supported the allegations as levelled in the FIR and thus there is clear material contradiction in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C.

¶8

It is vehemently submits by learned counsel for the appellant that a conjoint reading of the FIR as well as statement of the prosecutrix and the informant would give an inspiration that again the disputes between is pertaining to the non-payment of the installments of a vehicle and the the allegations of outraging the modesty of the victim has only been levelled in order to aggravate the same is

¶9

pressurize the appellant and thus the Investigating Officer as well as the special court has not considered this aspect of the matter and thus the summoning order as well as charge-sheet is liable to be set aside/quashed.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA have supported the submissions of the charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer as well as the summoning order passed by the special court on the ground that through investigation, charge-sheet has been filed having law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Gujrat Vs Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta reported in MANU/SC/0139/2019, no detailed deliberation are required at the stage of issuance of process with regard to the cases based on charge-sheet.

¶11

Having heard to the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is transpired that though a dispute was existing between the parties pertaining to the non-payment of some money and pertaining to the same claims and counter claims have been made by the parties, an incident of date 18.6.2022 has also been shown with regard to outraging modesty of the victim by the appellant. It is vehemently submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that this incident has been carved out in order to aggregative a simple dispute of non payment of money this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Investigating Officer or by the special court. The allegations as levelled in the FIR, has been supported by the prosecutrix/victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

¶12

Thus having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court In AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 1747, Bhushan Kumar and Anr v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr, In AIR 2015 SUPREME COURT 923, Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation,In Kishun Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar MANU/SC/0460/1993 : (1993) 2 SCC 16, In State of W.B. and Anr. v. Mohd. Khalid and Ors. MANU/SC/0154/1995 : (1995) 1 SCC 684,In S.K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Limited and Ors. MANU/SC/7011/2008 : (2008) 2 SCC 492, In M/s. India Carat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka MANU/SC/0349/1989 : 1989(26) ACC 280 (SC),In Minu Kumari and another Vs. State of Bihar and others MANU/SC/8098/2006 : 2006 (4) SCC 359, In the case of Nupur Talwar vs C.B.I. reported in 2013 AIR SCW 369 and State of Gujrat Vs Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta reported in MANU/SC/0139/2019. I do not find any illegality in the order whereby the appellant has been summoned to face trial and the request/prayer of the appellant with regard to the quashing of the summoning order as well as chargesheet is hereby refused .

¶13

Having regard to the facts that the appellant has not been arrested during the course of investigation and it may be presumed that he had co-operated in the investigation.

¶14

It is provided that the appellant may now appear before the trial court/special court within thirty days from today for the purpose of securing regular bail and if he appears/surrenders before the special court within period mentioned herein before the special court shall be under an obligation to dispose of the plea of regular bail of the appellant in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : (2021) 10 SCC 773 and Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I. through Director : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 941.

¶15

It is further provided that at the time of consideration of plea of bail of the appellant, the trial court may pay due regard to the submissions made on behalf of the appellant that the real dispute between the parties is pertaining to the non-payment of some money, pertaining to a vehicle.

¶16

The criminal appeal is finally disposed of in above terms.

¶17

Order Date :- 8.5.2023 Akbar

¶18

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AKBAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kumar 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

Ayyub and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandi @ Chandra Sekhar and Antoher Vs State of U.P. and Another

Om Prakash and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Geeta Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Brahmpal Goswami and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Annu Ali @ Javed and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another