Dismissed

Mansha Prasad Singh and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Sept 2023CRLA/7279/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal against a summoning order under Sections 323, 504 IPC and SC/ST Act. Appellants challenged the order, alleging mala fide prosecution, lack of evidence, and non-production of medical/photographic reports. The High Court observed no good ground to set aside the order and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal dismissed dismissing the challenge to the summoning order under Sections 323, 504 IPC and SC/ST Act.

Mansha Prasad Singh and 5 Others Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:182344

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7279 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Mansha Prasad Singh And 5 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Shankar Pd Gupta,Girijesh Kumar Gupta

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Jai Prakash Mishra

¶6

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

¶7

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

¶8

This appeal has been filed against the summoning order dated 17.05.2023 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Azamgarh in Criminal Complaint Case No. 19 of 2022 CNR No. UPAZ010007882022 (Radheshyam Vs. Mansha Prasad Singh and others), under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3(1) da, 3(1) dha SC/ST Act, Police Station Ahraula, District Azamgarh.

¶9

By the impugned order dated 17.05.2023, the trial court summoned all the appellants to face trial, under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3(1) da, 3(1) dha SC/ST Act.

¶10

It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that previously they had filed a Complaint Case No.09 of 2014 against the opposite party no.2 and 12 more accused persons, who were summoned to face trial under Sections 218, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. vide order dated 19.04.2018. In the counterblast of that complaint, Complaint Case No. 19 of 2022 on the basis of an application under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. was filed by the opposite party no.2 on 11.01.2022 against the appellants. The wife of opposite party no.2 had also filed the first information report No.0036 of 2022 on 18.02.2022. After investigation, final report was submitted in that first information report, and on the protest, the matter was re-investigated and again final report was filed by the Investigating Officer. The protest against the second final report filed by the wife of the opposite party no.2 is pending. In the complaint filed by the appellants, Non-Bailable Warrant and process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr. P.C. have been issued against the opposite party no.2, but he is not appearing in the trial court. There is no evidence or injury report in support of complaint filed

¶11

by the opposite party no.2. There is no motive of incident. The complaint has been filed by opposite party no.2 with malafide intention just in the counterblast of Complaint No. 09 of 2014 filed by the appellants, hence prayer is made accordingly.

¶12

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer and submitted that he was Gram Pradhan at that time and the chakroad was made through the field of opposite party no.2 and due to this enmity, the incident took place, and he got injured. The matter of chakroad in the field of opposite party no.2 was raised upto the Parliament by the appellants, but the chakroad was found correctly made through the chak of the appellants. The statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr. P.C. of the complainant and the witnesses respectively have not been placed by the appellants, hence prayer is made accordingly.

¶13

As per the complaint filed by the opposite party no.2, there is allegation that due to enmity of the elections, on 26.09.2021 at 5.00 P.M. the appellants arrived at the door of the house of the opposite party no.2 and hurled caste based words and abuses as mentioned in the complaint. When the complainant-opposite party no.2 ran towards his house to save his life, all the appellants thrashed opposite party no.2 with kicks, blows and baton inside his house and broke his mobile. When his wife came for his rescue, co-accused Madhubala, Urmila and Vimla pushed her down. After hearing hue and cry, the villagers and other persons came and accused persons ran away given threat of life. The complainantopposite party no.2 got himself medically examined.

¶14

After recording the statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr. P.C. of the complainant and the witnesses respectively, vide impugned order, the trial court summoned all the appellants to face trial under above mentioned sections.

¶15

It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is no motive of the incident, it is malafide prosecution. There is no evidence against the appellants, while as per impugned order dated 17.05.2023, trial court summoned the appellants after going through the statements of the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200 and 202 Cr. P.C. respectively. These statements have not been placed before the Court. The medical report of opposite party no.2 which was placed before the trial court at the time of passing of the impugned order, has not been placed before the Court. Thus, in the absence of any evidence, which was produced before the trial court, this court is not convinced with the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that no evidence was

¶16

produced by the opposite party no.2 before the trial court regarding summoning order dated 19.04.2018 passed in the complaint Case No. 09 of 2014. This complaint is claimed to be the counterblast of the complaint regarding the incident, which took place in the year 2008 and summoning order was passed on 19.04.2018 in that case. In the complaint filed by the opposite party no.2 the motive behind the incident is disclosed to be the enmity of the election. If any other first information report lodged by the wife of the opposite party no.2 has been found false by the Investigating Officer this fact does not render the present complaint to be false.

¶17

Thus in the opinion of the Court, no good ground is shown to setaside the impugned order dated 17.05.2023.

¶18

The present criminal appeal is thus dismissed.

¶19

Order Date :- 20.9.2023 T.S.

¶20

Digitally signed by :- TRIBHUWAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mansha Prasad Singh and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mansha Prasad Singh and 5 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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

Aun Raza Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sonu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vivek Vashistha Vs State of U.P. and Another