Partly allowed

Kasim and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Apr 2023CRLA/9837/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge quashed the impugned summons to the extent of offences under sections 3(1)(da) and 3(1)(dha) of the SC/ST Act due to the alleged incident occurring inside a house, but upheld the summons for IPC offences.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the summons regarding SC/ST Act offences (3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha)); upheld the summons regarding IPC offences (323, 324, 504, 506).

Kasim and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 93

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9837 of 2022

¶3

Appellant :- Kasim And 3 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shashi Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar,J.

¶5

Despite service of notice, no one is present on behalf of respondent no.2.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This appeal has been preferred under section 14-A (1) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as SC/ST Act) to quash the entire proceeding of Special Trial No.84 of 2021 and cognizance order dated 15.09.2021 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Mainpuri, under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)da, 3(1)dha of SC/ST Act, Police Station Barnahal, District Mainpuri.

¶8

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are innocent and have not committed the present offences. It is further submitted that the present prosecution was launched by the first informant against the appellants due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the alleged incident took place inside the house. It is further submitted that no case under SC/ST Act is made out against the appellants. It is further submitted that incident did not take place in the place within the public view. It is next submitted that there is no sufficient ground in the case to proceed against the appellants for the aforesaid offences. It is next submitted that the summoning

¶9

order is vague and illegal and the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that the impugned summoning order, whereby the appellants have been summoned is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside.

¶10

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the appeal and argued that there are clear allegations against the appellants. It is further submitted that in the complaint there are allegations against the appellants that they have abused the complainant by using caste indicative words and they have assaulted her. It was submitted that in view of material on record, a prima facie case, including the case under Section (3)(1)(da) and 3(1)(dha) SC/ST Act, is made out.

¶11

I have considered rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.

¶12

So far the order dated 15.09.2021 is concerned, by that order the appellants have been summoned. It may be observed that at the stage of summoning, the court is not to analyse reliability of the material on record. The evidentiary value and its credibility has to be considered at the stage of trial. Marshalling and appreciation of evidence is not in the domain of the court at that point of time. At this stage of consideration of material available on record, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the material brought on record by complainant is true and such material and documents have to be considered with a view to find out whether the facts emerging from such material when taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the offence.

¶13

Keeping aforesaid legal position in view, in the instant case, from the perusal of record, it is apparent that criminal appeal

¶14

has been filed on the ground that offences against the accused persons are alleged to have taken place inside the house, therefore, offences under SC/ST Act are not made out against the appellants. Thus, there is no evidence that the complainant was abused or humiliated by the accused persons in place within public view. The basic ingredients of the offence under section (3)(1)(da) and 3(1)(dha) of the Act are intentional insults or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and in any place within public view. All insults or intimidation to a person will not be an offence under the SC/ST Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. From the F.I.R. as well as material collected during investigation disclose that the alleged incident took place inside the house. Thus, in the instant case no prima facie case under section 3(1)(da) and 3(1)(dha) of the SC/ST Act is made out. However, so far as the other offences are concerned, in view of material discussed above a prima facie case for the other offences is made out.

¶15

In view of aforesaid, the impugned order to the extent of offences under 3(1)(da) 3(1)(dha) of the SC/ST Act is quashed. The impugned order so far as it relates to the offences against the accused appellants under section 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC is upheld. The impugned order stands altered to this extent.

¶16

Accordingly, the present appeal is disposed off in above terms.

¶17

Order Date :- 11.4.2023 Sanjeet

¶18

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

Kasim and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kasim and 3 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

Vijay Garg and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Divyansh Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sarthak Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Harishankar Kushwaha @ Kallu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pramod Kumar Jain and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another