Disposed

Anant Ram Dixit v. the State of U.P and Anr.

Allahabad HC7 Aug 2024/6637/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application to quash a chargesheet under IPC sections 323/504/506 and Section 3(i)(x) SC/ST Act, on grounds that the alleged caste abuse did not name a Scheduled Caste and evidence was lacking. Court disposed of the application, granting liberty to file a discharge application before the trial court through counsel, to be decided within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to applicant (through counsel) to move discharge application within two weeks; trial court to decide within further eight weeks.

Anant Ram Dixit Vs the State of U.P and Anr. — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:54444

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6637 of 2013

¶4

Applicant :- Anant Ram Dixit Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- B.P Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Farhan Alam Osmany

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Farhan Alam Osmany, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the chargesheet No. 24 of 2013, dated 30.10.2023 filed in Case Crime No. 1979 of 2013, under Sections 323/504/506 IPC and Sections 3(i) (x) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali City, District Hardoi and cognizance order dated 06.12.2022 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi as well as the entire proceedings in pursuance thereof.

¶8

It is the case of the applicant that the applicant has never hurled any abuse while naming the caste of the complainant and from the contents of the First Information Report it is also evident that he had spoken 'Bhangi' which is not Scheduled Caste as prescribed under the law. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that in fact, the complainant neither mentioned the aforesaid fact in the First Information Report nor it has ever been spoken before the Investigating Officer in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, submission is that the offence under Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST Act would not constitute. He further added that there is no medical report and it has falsely been stated that the applicant had beaten the complainant and further there is no other cogent piece of evidence. Thus, submission is that criminal proceedings against the applicant may be quashed.

¶9

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the complainant as well as for the State have opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the contents of the FIR itself enough to constitute prima facie case against the applicant and the FIR as well as the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before the Investigating Officer is not encyclopedia of any case and, thus, the contention of the applicant has no force at all and the instant application may be dismissed.

¶10

In rejoinder, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the interest of justice would sub serve if this Hon'ble Court may please to give liberty to the applicant to appear before the trial court and to move discharge application and the same may be decided within stipulated period of time as may be fixed by this Court. He also submits that since the age of the applicant is about 87 years at this point of time and he is a heart patient, therefore, he may also be given liberty to move the discharge application through his counsel.

¶11

Considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the instant application is hereby disposed off with liberty to the applicant to move a discharge application before the trial court within a period of two weeks and if such an application is moved, the same shall be considered and decided by the trial court within further period of eight weeks. The applicant is also given liberty to move such application through his counsel.

¶12

Order Date :- 7.8.2024 kkv/

¶13

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

Anant Ram Dixit v. the State of U.P and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anant Ram Dixit v. the State of U.P and Anr.

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

Vandana Upadhyay vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ravi Pratap Singh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Jagdish Prakash Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dairy Development Lko. and 2 Others

Hari Om and 2 Others vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

AKANkSHA Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Bhanu Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.