Allowed

Waseem Khan and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Aug 2023CRLA/3307/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court examined complaints under the SC/ST Act and IPC arising from a land dispute. The court allowed the appeal to quash summoning under SC/ST Act sections for lack of caste-based intent but dismissed the appeal regarding IPC sections, upholding the trial court's findings.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed partly regarding summoning under Sections 3(1)da and dha of SC/ST Act; appeal dismissed regarding Sections 323, 504, and 506 IPC.

Waseem Khan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:156506

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3307 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Waseem Khan And 2 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mahender Pal Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rohit Sharan Tomar,Shantanu Pandey,Sharad Sharma

¶5

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

¶6

Counter affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the appellants are kept 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 04.02.2023 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Rampur in Complaint Case No. 04 of 2022 (Banwari Lal Vs. Waseem Khan and others) under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1) Da, 3(1) Dha, SC/ST Act, Police Station Shahjadnagar, District Rampur.

¶9

It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is a civil dispute between the parties. The civil suit is given the colour of the criminal case by the opposite party no. 2. The property is still in the name of Ruksana, the purchaser of the land, in the revenue record. The first informant is neither owner nor in the possession over land in dispute. No such incident as mentioned in the complaint ever took place. It is further submitted that the witnesses Siyaram and Roop Singh were shown to have appeared in the trial court to adduce the evidence in favour of the opposite party no. 2. But both of them have given their affidavits that they never appeared in the trial court to adduce evidence in support of the version of the opposite party no. 2. PW 1, whose statement has been recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., is the wife of the complainant. Thus, there is no independent witness of the incident. Hence, prayer is made accordingly.

¶10

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 argued that an appeal of the opposite party no. 2 is pending before this court. He is the person in possession of the land in dispute. On 24.05.2021 all the appellants had gathered on the spot and with intent to encroach upon the disputed land they tried to plough the field.They were equipped with illegal weapons. They caught hold of the complainant, thrashed him, uttered caste based abused and gave threat and made good their escape.

¶11

If we go through the complaint, there are two incidents dated 24.05.2021 and 01.12.2021 mentioned in the complaint but in the statements of the witnesses only incident dated 24.05.2021 is reiterated. Regarding incident dated 24.05.2021 in the complaint dated 13.12.2021 it is mentioned that to encroach upon the land of opposite party no. 2 all the appellant equipped with unlawful weapons made an attempt to plough the field,

¶12

when resisted they caught hold of opposite party no. 2, thrashed him, used caste based words to humiliate him, abused him and gave threat of life.

¶13

All the appellants have been summoned along with sections of IPC under Section 3(1) da and 3(1) dha of SC/ST Act also. For the offence under Section 3(1) da of SC/ST Act intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of SC/ST in a place within the public view is must. But neither in the complaint nor in the statement of any of the witnesses it has come that caste based words were used to intentionally insult or intimidate the complainant with intent to humiliate a member of SC/ST.

¶14

So far as the offence under Section 3(1) (s) of SC/ST Act is concerned, for this section also,abusive language must be used because of the victim being SC/ST.

¶15

From perusal of the record, it is found that there is land dispute between the parties. Originally, the land is said to have been sold in 1994 by Narayan, the father of the complainant to one Ved Prakash after that the land is said to have been sold by Ved Prakash to Jaggu, by Jaggu to Ruksana Begum and by Ruksana Begum to Bramh Dutt, father of the appellant - Thakurdas. Admittedly, the name of the complainant does not exist on the disputed property in the revenue record, which makes it clear that the dispute between the parties is property dispute. Thus, the caste based words used by the appellants cannot be said to be used/uttered with intention to humiliate a member being him a person of SC/ST. When any abuse or caste based words is not used with intent to humiliate a member of SC/ST, the offence under Section 3(1) द (ध) of SC/ST Act cannot be said to be made out against the appellants.

¶16

So far as the offence under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC is concerned, regarding these sections there are allegations in the statements of complainant and the witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 IPC. In this regard, in the opinion of the court, there is no ground to interfere in the finding of the trial court.

¶17

Hence, the appeal is allowed partly regarding summoning the appellants under Section 3(1)da, dha of SC/ST Act. The appeal is dismissed with regard to summoning under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC.

¶18

Order Date :- 4.8.2023 gp

¶19

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

Waseem Khan and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Waseem Khan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Kumar Patel and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Praveen Kumar Vs State of U.P.and Another

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dhanpat Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raju Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Halim and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another