Allowed

Mohan Lal Kori v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2023CRLA/5907/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the Allahabad High Court set aside the Special Judge order dismissing an application under Section 156(3) CrPC. The court held that finding a prior enmity or pending case does not bar the registration of a cognizable offence for a new incident supported by medical reports.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 20.02.2023 is set aside and the trial court is directed to pass a fresh order on the application.

Mohan Lal Kori Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:180242

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5907 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Mohan Lal Kori Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

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

¶6

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

¶7

No one has put in appearance for the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 despite sufficient service.

¶8

This appeal has been filed against the order dated 20.02.2023 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kaushambi, whereby the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. of the appellant was rejected.

¶9

As per facts of the case, an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. (date not mentioned) was moved before the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kaushambi with the version that the appellant belongs to SC/ST community while the opposite parties belong to general class. The opposite parties are goonda type persons. Previously, also they had thrashed Sunita the daughter of the appellant and had insulted her regarding which a case was registered and the opposite parties were summoned to face the trial vide order dated 18.04.2022. There is property dispute also between the parties. The opposite parties used to pressurize the appellant to arrive at a compromise in the case filed by the first informant regarding thrashing her daughter. In continuation of the same on 17.06.2022 at 10.00 P.M. all the opposite parties equipped with country made pistol, axe and baton entered into the house of the appellant, hurled wild abuses and caste based words and stated that as the appellant had filed case against them and as he think of sending them to jail, they would put him to death and started thrashing him and his family members. Daughter Anita was assaulted with axe on her head. The first informant sustained injuries of axe in his hand. Both his sons were also thrashed. The mobile of his son valued at Rs. 10,500/- was broken and the ladies were mishandled. The neighbours came and somehow saved them. The opposite party

¶10

persons went away giving threat of life. When they went to the police station, the injuries of the first informant and his daughter Anita were examined at CHC and the injuries being grievous in nature they were referred to district hospital. The case of the appellant was not registered so the appellant had to sent a registered information to the Superintendent of Police concerned. But no action was taken.

¶11

This application of the appellant under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the impugned order.

¶12

It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that previously also the daughter of the appellant was thrashed at the hands of the opposite parties and as he did not enter into the compromise as pressurised by the opposite parties, so further this incident took place on 17.06.2022, regarding which medical examination report of the injured persons are appended with the paper book. Hence, prayer is made accordingly.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer.

¶14

From perusal of the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. it is clear that previously also on the ground of mishandling and thrashing the daughter of the appellant a case was registered against the opposite parties, wherein the summoning order was passed on 18.04.2022. As the opposite parties are said to have been pressurizing the appellant to compromise the matter and on refusal of the appellant the repeated incident is said to have taken place. The medical reports of both the injured; appellant and his daughter, have been filed, wherein the fracture is shown in ulna bone of the appellant. Thus, a cognizable offence can be said to be made out against the opposite parties, as per version of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The trial court has rejected the application on the ground that as per police report the incident was found to be false. It was also opined by the trial court that as one more case is pending between the parties, so the second incident by the same accused persons is not possible.

¶15

In the opinion of the court, it is not the presumption that if an incident took place between the parties, the second incident between same parties is barred. As per version of the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. the appellant was being pressurized to compromise the previous case and on refusal repeated incident is said to have been taken place with him. Due to property dispute and due to previous case also, the enmity between the parties is accepted. The enmity is a double edged weapon which can lead the

¶16

opposite parties to commit the offence and could also get them falsely implicated.

¶17

In the opinion of the court, on the basis of application under Section 156(30 Cr.P.C. a cognizable offfence can be said to have been committed with the appellant. In case of a cognizable offence the court is bound to register a case. The finding of the trial court that if an incident has taken place, the opposite parties could not repeat the offence, is not acceptable.

¶18

In the opinion of the court, the order is liable to be set aside.

¶19

The impugned order dated 20.02.2023 is hereby set aside. The trial court is directed to pass a fresh order on the application on the basis of discussions made above.

¶20

The appeal is allowed.

¶21

Order Date :- 19.9.2023 gp

¶22

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

Mohan Lal Kori v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Lal Kori v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

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

Rajesh Goshwami and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Vilas Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Kumar Maurya and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aun Raza Vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh Prajapati Vs State of U.P.