Allowed

Baramdeen Chamar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC21 Aug 2023CRLA/2286/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the criminal appeal against the Special Judge's order dismissing a complaint under the SC/ST Act. The Court held that the existence of a land dispute does not preclude filing a criminal complaint when no civil suit is pending and the alleged offences include caste-based abuse and physical assault.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dismissing the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. was set aside and the trial court was directed to pass a fresh order.

Baramdeen Chamar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:167258

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2286 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Baramdeen Chamar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Firdos Ahmad,Mahesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Balbeer Singh

¶5

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

¶6

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the opp. party nos. 2 and 3 and perused the record.

¶7

Counter affidavit has been filed by the learned counsel for the opp. party nos. 2 and 3, let it be taken on record.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant refused to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶9

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 24.1.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kaushambi in complaint case no. 35 of 2022, police station Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi whereby the complaint of the complainant / present appellant was dismissed under section 203 Cr.P.C.

¶10

It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the statement of the complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C. and in the statements of the witnesses under section 202 Cr.P.C., the complaint has been fully supported. Regarding injury, there is medical on record. As per the police report appended at page '8' of the counter affidavit there is a dispute of the property between the parties as the complainant /present appellant wants a thoroughfare from the land of opp. party no. 2 Phool Chandra Yadav, hence, the dispute arose between the parties. On the basis of this police report only, the trial court finding that there is dispute between the parties regarding the land, so the civil dispute cannot be given a colour of the criminal proceeding, rejected the complaint of the complaint, hence, the prayer is made accordingly.

¶11

Learned counsel for the opp. party nos. 2 and 3 opposed the prayer and submitted that as the matter relates to a dispute regarding the land, it cannot be given a colour of a criminal proceedings.

¶12

It is admitted that though the dispute is regarding the land between

¶13

the parties but no civil suit is pending in any court of law between the parties and this is because of the dispute of the land, the opp. parties are said to have caused the said offence. The opp. party nos. 2 and 3 are said to have hurled caste based abused and they are also said to have thrashed the appellant with kicks and fists. The medical report regarding the same is also on record. It is also the allegation that constructed wall of the appellant was also demolished by the opp. party nos. 2 and 3 and the building material was taken away by them. This version of the complaint has been supported by the complainant and his witnesses in their statements recorded under sections 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively. Though a judgment, Hitesh Verma VS. State of Uttarakhand and anr, 2020 LawSuit (SC) 691 has been placed before the court by the learned counsel for the opp. party nos. 2 and 3 but in paragraph no. 18 of the judgment it is clearly mentioned that as per the facts of that case the parties were litigating over the land and the allegation of hurling abuses was against a person who claimed title over the property and on the basis of this finding the charge sheet to the extent of section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST Act were quashed but here the position is different.

¶14

Here the dispute is regarding the land between the parties but admittedly no litigation is there between the parties. Admittedly the appellant belongs to scheduled caste and scheduled tribe category and the opp. party no. 2 and 3 belong to the backward class. As per the complaint, there is allegation of hurling caste based abuses, thrashing the appellant and taking away her building material from the spot. In the opinion of the court, prima facie a cognizable offence is made out against the opp. party nos. 2 and 3. Mere a civil dispute regarding which there is no litigation between the parties cannot disentitle the appellant to file a complaint and get the proceedings initiated against the opp. parties.

¶15

The impugned order dated 24.1.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kaushambi in complaint case no. 35 of 2022, whereby the complaint of the complainant / present appellant has been dismissed under section 203 Cr.P.C., police station Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi is hereby set aside. The trial court is directed to pass a fresh order on the basis of discussions made above.

¶16

The appeal is allowed.

¶17

Order Date :- 21.8.2023 Gss

¶18

Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Baramdeen Chamar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baramdeen Chamar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Smt. Ramvati Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Moolchandra Nishad and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramendra Prasad @ Ramendra Kumar Shukla and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amarvati Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kavita Bhati and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

State of U.P. Vs Vishwa Prakash Pandey