Partly allowed

Maan Singh Goswami and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Aug 2023CRLA/2794/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partly allowed an appeal against the framing of charges for burning an effigy and caste-coloured abuse during a political dispute. The court held no offence under SC/ST Act due to lack of intent to humiliate based on caste, but confirmed charges under IPC sections.

What did the court decide?

Setting aside the order framing charge under Section 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act; confirming the order of framing charge under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 342, 504, 506 IPC.

Maan Singh Goswami and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:158990

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2794 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Maan Singh Goswami And 4 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sushil Dubey,Ashok Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

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

¶6

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the opp. party no. 2 and perused the record.

¶7

This appeal under section 14-A(1) of SC/ST Act has been preferred against the order dated 21.2.2023 passed in S.S.T. No. 2300 of 2022, under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 342, 504, 506 I.P.C. and section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act. By the impugned order 4 discharge applications of the appellants have been collectively dismissed and the date was fixed for framing of the charge.

¶8

It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that regarding incident dated 10.1.2019 at 11.30 hours an FIR was lodged at 17.42 hours on the same day by Rahul Giri, appellant no. 3 Bhartiya Janata Party Youth Metropolitan Mahamantri against opp. party no. 2 and two other named persons along with about 15 unknown persons that a meeting of Yuva Morcha, Mahanagar Ghaziabad was being held at B.J.P. office, Rajnagar Ghaziabad under aegis of Gaurav Chopra, the President of Yuva Morcha Mahanagar. Suddenly some persons in 3-4 four wheelers came there and stared hurling wild and caste coloured abuses to Mahamantri Rajan Arya Valmiki and started giving threat of life to Man Singh Goswami, Mahanagar Adhyaksha B.J.P. When the first informant Rahul Giri came out Manoj Verma and Lilu Pradhan whom he recognized and knew very well along with 50 other persons started hurling abuses. Manoj Verma and Lilu Pradhan showing pistols in their hands assaulted them and made a fire which was missed, so the life of Rahul Giri was saved. All the accused persons were burning effigy of Man Singh Goswami, the Mahanagar Adhyaksha Yuva Morcha. They threw the burning effigy on Gaurav Chopra and Rahul Giri causing injuries in the hands of Gaurav Chopra. On the resistance, they tried to run away showing their weapons. Sonu and Lilu Pradhan were caught on the spot along with pistols and vehicle wherein a loaded pistol, iron

¶9

rod and batons were recovered. Lilu Pradhan is a miscreant and criminal type person who has been jailed various times. In reply to this FIR, regarding the same incident dated 10.1.2019, the present complaint has been filed on 24.4.2019 by Lilu Balmik wherein the allegations are general that Lilu Pradhan along with his followers at 11.00 a.m. on 10.1.2019 was burning effigy of Maan Singh. Maan Singh, Gaurav Chopra and Rahul Giri along with about 50 unknown persons came and stopped them from burning effigy and hurled caste coloured abuses and kidnapped Sonu @ Gulshan and Lilu Pradhan who could be released from their clutches after 3 hours only. During this period, they were thrashed with baton, sticks and belt. His mobile and a purse containing Rs. 2000/- were snatched by Gaurav Chopra. A false FIR was lodged against them. Their vehicle was also taken into custody of the police. A cash of Rs. 90,000/-, some files and driving license kept in the vehicle were found missing after their release from the jail.

¶10

It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the incident dated 10.1.2019 is admitted wherein both the parties levelled the allegations against each other. The FIR from the side of the appellants was lodged on the same day wherein chargesheet was filed against two persons and cognizance has already been taken by the court. In counterblast, this complaint was filed after 3 and 1/2 months with general allegations against the appellants. In fact the vehicle of the complainant was apprehended by the police wherein a loaded pistol was found. No specific caste based words have been mentioned in the complaint, so the offence under SC/ST Act cannot be said to be made out. The cognizance was taken against the appellants by the trial court when they moved discharge applications those applications were collectively dismissed vide order dated 21.3.2021.

¶11

Learned counsel for opp. party no. 2 opposed the prayer and submitted that on the basis of evidence available on record, the appellants have been summoned to face trial u/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 342, 504, 506 I.P.C. and section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act and their discharge applications have also been dismissed on the ground that on the basis of the evidence available on record prima facie offence under sections mentioned above is made out against them.

¶12

From the perusal of the record, It is clear that it was not a private dispute of the parties. Both the parties are the workers of the same political party while the appellants were busy in the party meeting opp. party no. 2 along with his companions is said to have started burning effigy of appellant no. 1 Maan Singh Goswami, the

¶13

president of Yuva Morcha. As a result the dispute arose between the party workers and FIRs were lodged from both sides.

¶14

If we go through the complaint and the statements of the complainant and witnesses under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively though the caste based words alleged to be used by the appellant are mentioned therein but it is nowhere mentioned that such words were used with intent to humiliate the complainant and his companions because of their being SC/ST category in public place and within the public view. The dispute is purely political being both the parties the workers of the same party, so in the opinion of the court no offence under section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act can be said to be made out against the appellants. So far as rest sections are concerned, as the dispute between the parties is accepted by both sides, the FIR and complaint have been lodged and cognizance has been taken after chargesheet and appellants have been summoned regarding complaint case, so regarding the rest sections the matter can be decided after the evidence of the parties.

¶15

The order dated 21.2.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, in S.S.T.No. 2300 of 2022 is set aside only with regard to framing charge under sections 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act. However, this order is confirmed with regard to the order of framing charge under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 342, 504, 506 I.P.C.

¶16

The appeal is, thus, partly allowed.

¶17

Order Date :- 8.8.2023 Gss

¶18

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

Maan Singh Goswami and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maan Singh Goswami and 4 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

Dr. Heera Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Malti Vs State of U.P. Thr. Its Sec. Home U.P. at Lkw

Amar Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dilip Kumar Yadav and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dr. Harendra Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another