Chandra Shekhar Singh @ Raju and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC6 May 2024A482/4136/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought Section 482 quashing of a summoning order and SC/ST Act complaint proceedings, claiming false implication and alibi evidence. The court found the matter required consideration, issued notice, fixed timelines for counter affidavits, and stayed proceedings against the applicants.

What the court decided

AI extract

Chandra Shekhar Singh @ Raju and Others vs State of U.P… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4136 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Chandra Shekhar Singh @ Raju And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vishwanath Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

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

¶6

By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have sought quashing of the summoning order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Shrawasti and entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.11 of 2024 under Sections 147, 323, 149, 504, 506 IPC, 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), S.C./S.T. Act.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants are innocent and were falsely implicated in the present case as they belong to forward class and the complainant belongs to S.C./S.T. community.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the complaint dated 16.02.2024 was filed by opposite party No.2 totally on false and fabricated grounds and even from the perusal of the para 1 of the complaint, it is crystal clear that the incident is within the four walls of the room. Thus, it has been argued that no ingredient of the offence under Sections 3(1) (Da), 3(1)(Dha) S.C./S.T. Act is attracted.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that every averments made in the complaint is false and fabricated. The applicants denied the entire allegation infact on the date of incident i.e. 29.01.2024 the applicant No.1 who is posted as Section Officer-I, Shrawasti in Uttar Pradesh Van Nigam in the office of Regional Manager (Lunging), Bahraich was present in

¶10

his office at the date and time of the alleged incident and was imparting his official duties, which is clearly evident from the presence certificate issued by the Regional Manager (Lunging) Bahraich dated 13.02.2024, placed on record as Annexure No.5 to the affidavit.

¶11

It is further argued that applicant No.3, who is posted as Assistant Professor in Raja Virendra Kant Singh Mahavidyalaya, Bhinga, District Shrawasti, was also present in his college at the date and time of alleged incident. In this regard, Principal of the College has issued presence register which is placed on record as Annexure-6 to the application.

¶12

It is further argued that applicant No.2, who is real brother of applicant No.1 is posted as Constable in Police Department and he was on leave during the alleged incident but he was not present in the village for the reason that applicant No.2 went to the house of his maternal uncle and aunt due to death in their families and house of his maternal uncle and aunt is about 35 kms away.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that only to get financial aid from the State exchequer impugned proceedings have been lodged against the applicants on false and frivolous allegations.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that opposite party No.2 is a habitual person of lodging false FIRs only to get money from State exchequer. Earlier, he filed an FIR against one Shahid Ali on 30.01.2022 under the provisions of the S.C./S.T. Act, copy of the Final report finds place at page 42 onwards to the application. Another FIR also filed against one Raksha Ram on 31.12.2022 under the provisions of S.C./S.T. Act, copy of the Final report finds place at page 52 onwards to the application. Thus, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that opposite party No.2 is habitual of lodging the FIRs

¶15

against innocent persons only with an intention to get the financial aid from the State exchequer. It has been thus, submitted that present complaint filed by the opposite party No.2 is nothing but an abuse of the process of the law and court.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma vs State of. Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710 as well as judgment of this Court in the case of Bhaiya Lal Singh vs State of U.P. : Criminal Appeal No.739 of 2022.

¶17

The matter requires consideration.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. appears for the State-opposite party No.1. Issue notice to respondent No.2.

¶19

Four weeks' time is granted to the respondents to file counter affidavit. Two weeks' time thereafter shall be available to the applicants to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶20

List on 06.09.2024 before appropriate Bench.

¶21

Till further orders, further proceedings as well as summoning order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Shrawasti in Complaint Case No.11 of 2024 under Sections 147, 323, 149, 504, 506 IPC, 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), S.C./S.T. Act shall remain stayed only in respect of the above three applicants.

¶22

Order Date :- 6.5.2024 prateek

¶23

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Chandra Shekhar Singh @ Raju and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Chandra Shekhar Singh @ Raju and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

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

Vijay Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and Others

Chandra Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue and Ors.

Sudhir Kumar Verma and Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. and Ors.

Swadesh Kumar Pno 062260015 and 11 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chif Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. and 3 Others

Vijay Sen Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Deptt., Lko. and Another

Anjana Vishvakarma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education Lko. and 2 Others