Allowed

Alfuddeen and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Aug 2023CRLA/3617/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal against the trial court's order rejecting the appellants' discharge petition. The court set aside the order, citing that the dispute appears to be of a civil nature regarding land ownership with a pending suit and lacks specific allegations of caste-based intent.

What did the court decide?

The discharge application was allowed; all three appellants are discharged of the charges; the impugned order was set aside.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:164095

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3617 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Alfuddeen And 2 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Laxmi Narayan Rathour Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

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

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

No one has put in appearance for the opposite party no. 2 despite of sufficient service.

¶8

This is an appeal filed against the order dated 22.03.2023 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jalaun at Orai in Special Session Trial No. 19 of 2023 arising out of Complaint Case No. 28 of 2019 (Smt. Vimla Devi Vs. Aashiya and others) under Sections 504, 506 IPC and 3(1) (da)(dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotara, District Jalaun, whereby the discharge application of the appellants, Paper No. 19 Ka, was rejected by the trial court.

¶9

As per the version of the complaint, as Aashiya d/o Jhallan, appellant no. 3, was in illegal possession of the house of opposite party no. 2, on 28.02.2019 at 6.00 p.m. when the husband of opposite party no. 2 along with one Rajesh Kumar and the first informant reached at the house, Aashiya, her father Jhallan, her brothers Alfuddeen and Nachu were present there. When they were asked to vacate the house, they got angry, hurled caste based abuses and asked them to go away, otherwise threat of life was given. A report was given at the police station concerned and registered letter was sent to Superintendent of Police, Jalaun at Orai on 06.03.2019 but when no action was taken then this complaint was filed on 08.04.2019.

¶10

It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that Aashiya had purchased the plot from the husband of opposite party no. 2 by notary affidavit and after that the appellants along with Aashiya are in possession over the plot by residing in the house constructed on that plot by them. On 30.02.2015 the husband of the opposite party no. 2 sold the plot to one Sudha w/o Rajesh. When the appellants

¶11

came to know about that sale deed, on 31.05.2016 they filed an injunction suit in the civil court and notices were received by the husband of the opposite party no. 2 and Rajesh. Regarding incident dated 15.06.2016 the complaint was filed by Aashiya against the husband of opposite party no. 2 and Rajesh on 12.07.2016. In that complaint both these persons have been summoned. on 04.11.2017 also, the husband of the opposite party no. 2 moved an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. that the appellants and Aashiya were encroaching upon the land in dispute but that application was rejected by the court and again on the same allegation present complaint has been filed. Hence, prayer is made accordingly.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer and submitted that after the statement of the complainant and the witnesses the trial court summoned the appellants only to face the trial under Sections 504, 506 IPC and 3(1) (da)(dha) of SC/ST Act. After summoning, the appellants moved discharge application before the trial court, which was rejected by the impugned order. The order being a detailed and well explained legal order prayer is made to reject the application of the appellants.

¶13

From perusal of the record, it is found that, though, Aashiya is said to have purchased the land beneath the building wherein the appellants are said to be residing, by notary affidavit from the husband of the opposite party no. 2 in the year 1998 but now the husband of opposite party no. 2 is said to have sold this plot allegedly in possession of the appellants and Aashiya. Regarding that sale deed a civil suit of Aashiya is pending. A criminal suit is also said to have been filed by Aashiya against husband of opposite party no. 2 and one Rajesh in the name of wife of this Rajesh Kumar the land is said to have been sold by the opposite party no. 2. Rajesh and Kalyan Singh husband of opposite party no. 2 have been summoned to face trial regarding allegedly abusing Aashiya and her family members. It is clear that regarding application dated 04.11.2017 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. the court rejected that application and again on the same allegation changing the date of incident, the complaint is said to have been lodged.

¶14

From perusal of the record, it is also found that there is dispute regarding ownership/possession of the disputed land between opposite party no. 2, her husband and Aashiya, the sister and daughter of the appellants. If we go through the complaint, in the complaint and the statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C. the allegation of the complaint are reiterated but it is clear that the witnesses in the complaint are the husband of opposite party no. 2

¶15

and the husband of lady, in whose favour sale deed dated 13.02.2015 is said to have been executed by the husband of the opposite party no. 2. The dispute clearly appears to be of civil nature regarding which civil suit is pending. Regarding caste based words, there is neither allegation in the complaint that these caste based words were used by the appellants with intent to humiliate opposite party no. 2 or her family members, being them to be a member of SC/ST community nor it has been mentioned in the FIR that any abuse was used against opposite party no. 2 and her family members because of the reason that they belong to SC/ST community. The matter being the same regarding ownership and possession of the land regarding which civil suit is pending, present case can be said to malicious prosecution misusing the provisions of law. The trial court found that prima-facily on the basis of statement of the complainant and her witnesses that a prima-facie case is made out against the appellants under above mentioned sections but the trial court has not given any finding regarding the facts mentioned by the accused appellants before that court.

¶16

The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.03.2023 is hereby set aside. The discharge application 19 Ka moved by the appellants in the trial court is allowed. All the three appellants are discharged of the charges under Sections 504, 506 IPC and 3(1) (da)(dha) of SC/ST Act.

¶17

Order Date :- 16.8.2023 gp

¶18

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

Alfuddeen and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alfuddeen 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

Sapna Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sushil Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Chhaya and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pradeep Kumar Verma and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jagdesh Maurya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikas Thakur and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another