Dismissed

Madhav Singh Rajput and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 May 2023CRLA/3373/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused the appeal to quash the charge-sheet and proceedings in a SC/ST atrocities case, finding a prima facie case. However, it disposed of the appeal by directing the trial court to consider bail expeditiously if appellants surrender within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing refused. Bail to be considered expeditiously if appellants surrender within 30 days.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:110022

¶2

Court No. - 81 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3373 of 2023 Appellant :- Madhav Singh Rajput And 4 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Om Shiv Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶3

Heard Shri Dinesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Shri Om Shiv, learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶4

The instant appeal under Section 14-A(1) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been filed by the appellants- Madhav Singh Rajput, Shiv Mohan @ Bablu Rajput, Shivam Rajput, Ram Bahadur @ Vishwanath and Harishchandra Rajput with the prayer to allow the present appeal and set aside/quash the charge sheet dated 23.07.2022 and summoning order dated 08.12.2022 passed in Sessions Trial No. 1580 of 2022 (State vs. Madhav Singh Rajpur and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 85 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5a) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Police Station Mangalpur, District Kanpur Dehat, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2/Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Kanpur Dehat and to quash the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case.

¶5

Learned counsel for the appellants has made many factual submissions to demonstrate that the FIR was lodged on false and concocted facts just to pressurize and harass the appellants and the Investigating Officer without going deep into the matter in a cursory manner has submitted the charge sheet, and the court below has taken cognizance without considering the matter in right perspective and, therefore, the charge sheet, the order of the Special Court, whereby the cognizance has been taken and process is issued are bad in law and the same be quashed.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. while controverting the arguments of the learned counsel for appellants submits that, the arguments of the learned counsel for appellants is, with regard to the factual aspects of the case which cannot be appreciated at this stage, as only a primafacie case is required to be seen at the stage of taking of cognizance and issuance of process.

¶7

Having regard to the facts and circumstances and keeping in view the order intended to be passed, the service of notice on

¶8

opposite party no.2 is hereby dispensed with.

¶9

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against appellants. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be appreciated by this Court as at this stage only a primafacie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 1747, Bhushan Kumar and Anr v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr, AIR 2015 SUPREME COURT 923 , Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation , in Kishun Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar, reported in MANU/SC/0460/1993 : (1993) 2 SCC 16 , State of W.B. and Anr. v. Mohd. Khalid and Ors . reported in MANU/SC/0154/1995 : (1995) 1 SCC 684 , S.K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Limited and Ors . reported in MANU/SC/7011/2008 : (2008) 2 SCC 492 , M/s. India Carat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in MANU/SC/0349/1989 : 1989(26) ACC 280 (SC) , Minu Kumari and another Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in MANU/SC /8098/2006 : 2006 (4) SCC 359 , Nupur Talwar vs C.B.I. reported in 2013 AIR SCW 369 and in State of Gujrat Vs Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta reported in MANU/SC/0139/2019 .

¶10

Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for quashing the Charge-sheet, summoning order as well as all proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby refused.

¶11

However, it is provided that if the appellants have already not been secured regular bail, the instant appeal, in the backdrop of aforesaid decisions and keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the request of learned counsel for the appellants, is disposed of with direction to the trial Court that if the appellants appear and surrender before the Court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously by the Court below strictly in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0274/2017, In Re: To issue certain Guidelines Regarding inadequacies and deficiencies in Criminal Trials v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, MANU/SC/0292/2021, Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : (2021) 10 SCC 773 and Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I. through Director : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 941.

¶12

Order Date :- 19.5.2023/Praveen

¶13

Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Madhav Singh Rajput and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhav Singh Rajput 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

Smt. Minakshi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Peer Mohammad @ Peeru and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Parmatma Yadav @ Parmatma Ram Harakh Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hari Shankar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ravindra Sardar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Ankit Agrahari and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another