Partly allowed

Rinki Tiwari @ Sangeeta and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Aug 2023CRLA/2229/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against a summoning order in an SC/ST case, the High Court set aside cognizance and summons for specific IPC and SC/ST charges against all appellants due to insufficient evidence of involvement, while affirming the summons under IPC 504 against the parents.

What did the court decide?

Cognizance and summons set aside against the appellant no.1 and the parents for specific IPC 323, 506 and SC/ST charges; summons under IPC 504 confirmed against the parents.

Rinki Tiwari @ Sangeeta and 2 Others… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:162365

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2229 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Rinki Tiwari @ Sangeeta And 2 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Santosh Kumar Upadhyay,Vinod Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Atul Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present criminal appeal under Section 14A(1) of SC/ST Act has been filed against the order dated 15.11.2022 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Gauram Budha Nagar in S.S.T. No. 305 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 06 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504,506 I.P.C. , Section 3(1)(r) and Section 3(1) (s) SC/ST Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Azamgarh, whereby the learned trial court proceeded to summon the appellants.

¶8

It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is no allegation against the appellant no.1 Rikki Tiwari @ Sangeeta, daughter of appellant nos. 2 and 3 in the first information report. All the appellants have been falsely implicated being sister and parents of Arvind Tiwari. Whatever offences are said to be alleged in the first information report or in the statement of opposite party no.2, those are against Arvind Tiwari, who is languishing in jail. The offence of hurling caste based abuses is said to have been committed within the house where no outsider is said to be present as per statement of opposite party no.2 under section 161 Cr. P.C. Hence prayer is made accordingly.

¶9

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer and submitted that co-accused Arvind Tiwari was already married person, having one issue but this fact was concealed by Arvind Tiwari from opposite party no.2. There is allegation of hurling caste based abuses in the house in the presence of outsiders, hence the cognizance order dated 15.11.2022 is well founded order based on the evidence available on record.

¶10

From the perusal of the first information report, which has been lodged after about four months of the incident,, the allegation is found that on the pretext of marriage, Arvind Tiwri son of

¶11

Nagendra Tiwari and Urmila Tiwari and brother of Rikki Tiwari @ Sangeeta, developed relations with the opposite party no.2 Kalpana @ Neetu, who belonged to scheduled caste and taking into confidence on the pretext of the marriage, Arvind Tiwari established physical relation with her. His mother and father also gave her false assurance of the marriage that the health of the father of Arvind Tiwari is not good when he would recover, the marriage of Arvind Tiwari would be solemnized with opposite party no.2.

¶12

While living with Arvind Tiwari, opposite party no.2 Kalpana @ Neetu became pregnant, when she disclosed this fact to Arvind Tiwari, he uttered caste based words and refused to marry with her, he kicked in the stomach of the victim, as a result of which, she faced miscarriage. She was expelled from the house of Arvind Tiwari. When again she went to the house of Arvind Tiwari in District Azamgarh again she was hurled abuses. In October, 2021 she went to the house of Arvind Tiwari, his parents hurled caste based words and abuses to her and expelled her from the house. On 07.03.2022, Arvind Tiwari and his mother Urmila Tiwari came to her room and hurled caste based words and Arvind Tiwari refused from the marriage and thrashed her with kicks and blows. After hearing hue and cry, sister of first informant namely Vimla and other persons of the locality gathered, who saved the first informant.

¶13

Thus as per first information report, the main allegation is against Arvind Tiwari and then against the parents of Arvind Tiwari. There is allegation of hurling caste based words and other abuses. Admittedly these abuses and caste based words are said to have used inside the house. In the first information report, though it has been mentioned that after hearing the noise, sister of first informant Vimla and other persons of the locality gathered on the spot. In the statement of victim under 161 Cr. P.C. she has stated that she was hurled cased based abuses but there is no version that any outsider came inside the house. Urmila the mother of Arvind Tiwari is said to have given false assurance of her marriage with Arvind Tiwari, while Arvind Tiwari was already married. In the first information report and in the statement of victim, there is no allegation that Arvind Tiwari was already married person, having one issue. Cognizance against the appellants has been taken under Sections 323, 504,506 I.P.C., Section 3(1)(r) and Section 3(1) (s) SC/ST Act and no cognizance has been taken under section 420 I.P.C. against any of the appellants.

¶14

So far as the allegation against Rikki Tiwari @ Sangeetaappellant no.1 is concerned, there is no allegation of hurling abuses against her or that she ever gave any threat of life or

¶15

thrashed the first informant. So far as the offence under SC/ST Act is concerned, in the statement of the victim, it has been clearly mentioned that these caste based abuses were hurled within the house and it is not the version of the victim in her statement under section 161 Cr. P.C. that any outsider was present inside the house at that time. Thus the offence under Section 3(1) (Da) (Dha) of SC/ST Act cannot be said to be prima facie made out against any of the appellants. So far as the allegation against Nagendra Tiwari-appellant no.3 and Urmila Tiwari-appellant no.2 under Section 506 I.P.C. is concerned, in the whole first information report and in the statement of victim under Section 161 Cr. P.C. there is no allegation that these two appellants ever gave threat of life to first informant-opposite party no.2. The maximum allegation against Nagendra Tiwariappellant no.3 and Urmila Tiwari-appellant no.2 can be said to be made out under Section 504 I.P.C. There is no allegation of thrashing the victim against any of the appellants.

¶16

Criminal appeal is partly allowed.

¶17

Cognizance order dated 15.11.2022 under Sections 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (Da) (Dha) of SC/ST is set aside against Nagendra Tiwari and Urmila Tiwari. Cognizance order under Section 323, 504, and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (Da) (Dha) of SC/ST is set aside against Rinki Tiwari @ Sangeeta. Summoning order under Section 504 I.P.C. is confirmed against Nagendra Tiwari and Urmila Tiwari. Thus appeal against the impugned order dated 15.11.2022 is allowed against Rinki Tiwari @ Sangeeta and it is also allowed against Nagendra Tiwari and Urmila Tiwari regarding summong under Sections 323, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1) (Da) (Dha) of SC/ST. Appeal against Nagendra Tiwari and Urmila Tiwari is dismissed with regards to summoning under Section 504 I.P.C.

¶18

Order Date :- 10.8.2023 T.S.

¶19

Digitally signed by :- TRIBHUWAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rinki Tiwari @ Sangeeta and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rinki Tiwari @ Sangeeta and 2 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vindhyansini Mishra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gulfam @ Gulfan Vs State of U.P. and Another

State of Up Vs Dev Prakash and 2 Others

Virendra Kumar Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Shivani Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 4 Others

Surendra Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another