Partly allowed

Laeek and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2023CRLA/3164/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partly allowed the criminal appeal. It upheld the summons under general IPC sections for assault and affray but set aside the summons under the SC/ST Atrocities Act, holding that an incident confined within the four walls of a house does not constitute a public view.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed partly; the summoning order under Section 3(1)(d)(dh) of the SC/ST Act was set aside, while the order under IPC sections was confirmed.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:153855

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3164 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Laeek And 3 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Manish Kumar Singh,B.N.Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Raghuraj Singh

¶5

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

¶6

Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

This is an appeal against the order dated 28.09.2022 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jalaun at Orai in Complaint Case No. 39 of 2021, Smt. Vidya Devi Vs. Sarfaraz and others, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1) (द) ( ध) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Kalpi, District Jalaun, whereby the trial court summoned all the four appellants along with one co-accused to face trial under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1) (द) ( ध) SC/ST Act.

¶9

It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that regarding incident dated 10.07.2021 at about 6.00 p.m. Mohd. Waseem son of appellant no. 1 - Laeek lodged an FIR against Pankaj Ahirwar son of opposite party no. 2 and his three companions under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC wherein Sarfaraz s/o Laeek - appellant no. 1 was shown to be injured. The injury report of Sarfaraz is on record. The charge sheet under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC against all the four accused persons was filed by the Investigating Officer on 05.08.2021 and regarding same incident the opposite party no. 2 filed the present complaint by way of application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. dated 02.08.2021 and after statement of the complainant and her witnesses under Sections 200 ad 202 Cr.P.C. respectively the appellants along with one co-accused person were summoned to face the trial under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1) (द) ( ध) SC/ST Act. In the complaint and in the statement of the complainant and her witnesses it is clearly mentioned that the incident took place within the fourwalls of the house of the complainant. Thus, the offence under Section 3(1) (द) ( ध) SC/ST Act cannot be said to be made out against the appellants. Hence,

¶10

prayer is made accordingly.

¶11

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 opposed the prayer and submitted that after registration of the complaint and the statement of the complainant and the witnesses, the trial court has summoned the appellants to face trial under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1) (द) ( ध) SC/ST Act. That means that court did not find the offence committed under Section 452 IPC and thereby the appellants were summoned to face the trial under Section 3(1) (द) ( ध) SC/ST Act also.

¶12

From perusal of the record, it is found that regarding incident of the same date and same time an FIR was lodged by the son of the appellant no. 1 and the charge sheet was filed in that case after investigation. Regarding same incident, the opposite party no. 2 also filed a complaint by way of application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. dated 02.08.2021, wherein after statement of the complainant and the witnesses the appellants along with one more co-accused person have been summoned to face the trial under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1) (द) ( ध) SC/ST Act. As the son of the present appellant namely Sarfaraz and son of the complainant namely Pankaj Ahirwar are said to have been injured in the same incident and the injury reports of both the injured persons are on record, which show that the incident took place. Who was aggressor shall be decided after the evidence of the parties. But this much is clear from the complaint and the statements of the complainant - Smt. Vidya Devi and her witnesses, Seva Devi and Kamal Singh that the incident took place inside the house. As per Section 3(1) (द) ( ध) SC/ST Act, it is necessary that the incident must take place in any place within the public view. Hence, the incident within the four walls of the house cannot be said to be an incident in a place within the public view.

¶13

So far as the argument of the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is concerned that the trial court has not summoned the appellants and one co-accused to face trial under Section 452 IPC, which shows that the court accepted that the incident took place in a place within the public view, this argument does not inspire the confidence because in the complaint and in the statement of the complainant and all the four witnesses it has clearly come that the incident took place inside the house. The trial court in its order has nowhere given finding that the incident did not take place inside the house and it took place in a place within the public view. In fact, the trial court has misread the statement of the complainant and the witnesses, who have clearly stated in their statements that the incident took place inside the house. Thus, the summoning of

¶14

the appellants under Section 3(1) (द) ( ध) SC/ST Act cannot be said to be lawful in the eyes of law.

¶15

So far as the summoning under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC is concerned, the injury to the persons of both the parties and the incident too are admitted to both the parties. Who was the aggressor is to be decided by the trial court after the evidence.

¶16

Hence, the appeal is allowed partly. The order dated 28.09.2022 is confirmed regarding summoning under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and the summoning order dated 28.09.2022 regarding summoning of the appellants under Section 3(1) (द) ( ध) SC/ST Act, is hereby set aside.

¶17

Order Date :- 2.8.2023 gp

¶18

Digitally signed by :- GANESH PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Laeek and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laeek and 3 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Susheel Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Kumar Saroj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vipin Singh @ Balak Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pramod Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Akbar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Brajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.and Another