Dismissed

Smt. Heerawati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and 5 Others

Allahabad HC13 May 2024/1217/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by Smt. Heerawati challenging the trial court's order rejecting her complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., upholdng the trial court's finding that she was not a bonafide litigant due to contradictory statements.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal filed under the SC/ST Act was dismissed; no order as to costs.

Smt. Heerawati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36477

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1217 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Smt. Heerawati Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Suresh Chandra Srivastava,Vaibhav Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Jayshanker Shukla

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and and Sri S.P. Tiwari, learned AGA for the State.

¶7

By means of instant appeal under Section 14A(1) of Scheduled Cases and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "SC/ST Act"), the appellant has assailed the order dated 08.01.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, District- Sultanpur in Criminal Case No. 276/2021 (Heerawati vs. Rajendra Vishwakarma and others), under Sections- 419, 420, 376, 323, 504, 384, 506 IPC and Sections- 3 (2) (5) (A) & 3 (1) & (D) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Chanda, District- Sultanpur.

¶8

By the impugned order dated 08.01.2024, the trial court dismissed the complaint preferred by the appellant under Section 203 IPC. The relevant portion of the order dated 08.01.2024 on reproduction reads as under:-

¶9

" इसपककरधकरक-200 दणडपककयकससकहतकममवकररतबयकनसससपषहहजकतकहहकक, एकओर

¶10

आवसकददकरकसवयसकवपककरकजसनदकससकथकरकब 11 वररसतकरहनसककबयकनकदयकगयकहह, ददसरक ओरपसत पररवकदधकरक-376 भकरतकयदणडससकहतककसअनतगरतपसत ककयकगयकहहव जककतसदचकशबददससअपमककनतककयसजकनसकककथनककयकगयकहह, जबककधकरक-202 दणडपककयक ससकहतककसअनतगरतपसत सकककरकधसशयकमकमशकदकरकउककवरयममकहईबयकननहहकदयकगयकहह। वसत त तयकदरकजसनदकवशवकमकरकससकथपकत-पतनककसततरपररहकहहतथकबततरपतनकउससकवपकक दकरकनहहरखकजकरहकहहवघरससकनककलकदयकजकरहकहह, तबभकइसअधधकनयमकसअधकन अकभयतकगरकहतलबककयसजकनसककआधकरउपलबधनहहहह।

¶11

मकननकयउचचतमनयकयकलयदकरककवधधवयवसथककबरलकककरपहरसशनधलकमटसडबनकमएडवसनटज इनव स टममट 2019 (2) सक०सक०एस०सक०पसज 1640 ममभकयहकधसदकनतपतनतपकतपककदतककयक गयकहहऔरअवधकररतककयकगयकहहककदकणणडकककयरवकहककहउतपकडनककमकधयमनहहबनकयक जकसकतक।

¶12

यकदककसकमकमलसकहबढकचडककरपसत ककयकगयकहहतहनयकयकलयकहयहकसऔरसतकररहनस ककआवशयकतकहहतकहह।यकदवकसतकवकतथयकहपपथकककयकजकसकतकहहतहवहकसनयकयकलय अकगमककयरवकहककरसकतकहह, लसककनयकदकथकनकऐसकपसशककयकगयकहह, जहकसवकसतकवकतथय तथकबढकचढककरपसत ककयसगयसतथयककपहचकनसतकनणशचतनहहहहपकरहकहह, वहकसनयकयकलय समपदररकथकनककहअमकनयघहकरतकरसकतकहह।पसत मकमलसममकतछऐसकहकहह, ऐसकणसथकत ममककसककहतलबककयसजकनसकककहईऔकचतयनहहहह।पररवकदकनरसतककयसजकनसयहगयहह।

¶13

आदसश

¶14

फतजदकरकवकदससखयक-276/2021, धकरक 203 द०प०सस०कसअनतगरतकनरसतककयकजकतकहह।

¶15

पतकवलककनयमकनतसकरदकधखलदफतरहह।"

¶16

Brief facts of the case are to the effect that the appellant, who is presently aged about 54 years as appears from the memo of appeal, preferred an application dated 27.08.2020 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. claiming herself to be the wife of opposite party No. 2/Rajendra Vishwakarma. As per contents of this application, the appellant and her husband, to whom she was married as per Hindu rites and rituals, were separated in terms of the decision of the Village Panchayat and she started living with opposite party No. 2/Rajendra Vishwakarma since May, 2011 as husband and wife. To establish this relationship, the appellant has placed on record the notarized agreement of marriage, which has no recognition in the eye of law, and caste certificate dated 15.11.2020, as per which, the husband of the appellant is one Rejendra Kumar and not Rejendra Vishwakarma, opposite party No. 2 herein.

¶17

Further, as per the contents of aforesaid application, in the month of May, 2011 itself, the opposite party No. 2 was the father of 4 sons and 2 daughters.

¶18

It also reflects from this application that after 7 years of live-in-relationship, the opposite party No. 2 declined to continue the relationship with the appellant and as per the allegations levelled in this application, the opposite party No. 2 assaulted the appellant and abused her and also made casteist remarks against her.

¶19

To support the allegations made in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the statement of appellant was recorded before the trial court, which is on record. A perusal of this statement of the appellant indicates that before the trial court on oath she stated that she is the wife of Om Prakash.

¶20

From the aforesaid, it is apparent that on one occasion, the appellant is claiming that she is wife of opposite party No. 2/Rajendra Vishwakarma and on another occasion, she is claiming herself to the wife of Rajendra Kumar and before the trial court on oath, she stated that she is the wife of Om Prakash. In this view of the matter, the appellant is not the bonafide litigant nor truthful witness.

¶21

The statements of witnesses before the trial court namely Radheyshyam Mishra and Bhola Yadav were also recorded as required under Section 202 Cr.P.C.

¶22

The witness namely Radheyshyam Mishra before the trial court on oath stated that approximately two and a half years back, the appellant was assaulted by Ravi Shankar, Hari Shankar and Lal Mani, all sons of opposite party No. 2/Rajdendra Vishwakarma, as also by Rajendra and he intervened and thereafter, he left the place.

¶23

As per the statement of witness Bhola Yadav, the appellant was in live-inrelationship with opposite party No. 2/Rajdendra Vishwakarma and this relationship could not continue after about 7-8 years and the appellant was

¶24

assaulted by the opposite party No. 2/Rajendra Vishwakarma and his sons. They also used abusive language and made casteish remarks against the appellant in the public place.

¶25

From a conjoint reading of the aforesaid, it, prima facie, appears that the appellant was in live-in-relationship with the opposite party No. 2/Rajendra Vishawakarma and the said live-in-relationship could not continue for some reasons after 11 years. In this view of the matter, it appears that to compel the opposite party No. 2/Rrajendra Vishwakarma to continue the relationship with the appellant, the appellant concocted the story and filed the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

¶26

In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the observations, quoted above, made by the trial court while rejecting the application filed by the appellant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are just and proper and need no interference by this Court even on the ground raised by appellant's counsel that the trial court failed to take note of the statement of witness namely Bhola Yadav while passing the order, under appeal, dated 08.01.2024, which is required as per the judgment dated 26.07.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 561 of 2012 (Dilip Kumar vs. Brajraj Srivastava and Another) .

¶27

Upon due consideration, this Court finds that the complaint/application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has rightly been dismissed by the trial court. It is for the reason that there are several contradictions in her statements, as on one occasion, the appellant is claiming that she is wife of opposite party No. 2/Rajendra Vishwakarma and on another occasion, she is claiming herself to the wife of Rajendra Kumar and before the trial court on oath, she stated that she is the wife of Om Prakash, as such, she is not the bonafide litigant nor truthful witness and only to compel the opposite party No. 2/Rrajendra Vishwakarma to continue the relationship with the appellant, the appellant concocted the story and filed the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

¶28

For the reasons aforesaid, the present appeal has no force. Accordingly, it is dismissed . No order as to costs.

¶29

Order Date :- 13.5.2024 Arun/-

¶30

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Heerawati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Heerawati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and 5 Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vansh Kashyap @ Shanu Vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Golu @ Alok @ Alok Verma and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Saurabh Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Homes Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Jagdeesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Santram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Smt. Geeta Vs State of U.P. through Prin. Secy., Home Department Civil Secretariat, Lucknow and others