Partly allowed

Dharmendra Yadav Alias Dharmendra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Jun 2024A482/5357/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court, while hearing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings under SC/ST Act and IPC, noted submissions regarding non-public nature of the incident. The Court issued notice to an opposite party, fixed timelines for affidavits, and stayed proceedings concerning the applicant pending further hearing.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in the Session Case were stayed in respect of the applicant pending the hearing on the next date.

Dharmendra Yadav Alias Dharmendra vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5357 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Dharmendra Yadav Alias Dharmendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Himanshu Suryavanshi,Alok Saran Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Alok Saran, Advocate alongwith Sri Himanshu Suryavanshi, learned counsel for applicants, as well as Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Session Case No. 1403 of 2023; State Versus Dharmendra Yadav and others, arising out of First Information Report No. 595 of 2021, Under Section- 323, 308, 504, 506 IPC and section 3(1)Da, Dha, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST Act'), police Station - Para, District - Lucknow, pending in the court of Special Judge (S.C. / S.T.) Act. Lucknow, as well as the impugned summoning order and cognizance order dated 29-03-2023 and charge sheet no. 1 of 2022 Dated 03-05-2022 in the said case.

¶7

Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case due to enmity and rivalry. As per the allegations levelled in the first information report, which was lodged on 22.12.2021 at 15:36 hrs. in respect of an incident which took place on 21.12.2021 at 22:50 hrs., lodged by the complainant Raju, the applicant alongwith his brother and one Pradeep Kumar came in the house of the applicant and started abusing with caste language and also started beating him with kicks, fists and danda and after making hue and cry the persons of the complainant came for rescue and thereafter the applicant alongwith his brother and Pradeep fled away from the spot. Counsel for applicant further submits that as per the allegation in the first information report it has been stated clearly that whatever the incident is said to have taken place, that has happened inside the house of the opp. party No.2, i.e., within the forecorners of the house, thus, it is argued that the ingredients of Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the S.C./S.T. Act are not attracted at all in the case of the present applicant, as there is no any 'public view' nor any 'public place', thus, there is no question of any public humiliation. In support of his

¶8

arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710 , and also by this court rendered in the Application U/s 482 No. 11043 of 2023, Devendra Yadav and ors. v. State of U.P. & anr . It has also been submitted that whatever other allegations regarding beating the informant with kicks, fists and danda are there in the F.I.R., that are also false and fabricated. No such incident, as alleged, took place at all. Even the injury, which was mentioned by the doctor, is simple in nature and is manufactured. It is also argued by the counsel that as the complainant is an influential person and has also political links with the person of local Government, thus, it has been argued that the entire proceedings initiated against the applicant is with the intention to harass him and also to falsely implicate him in the present case and to get financial aid by the State Exchequer in lodging the first information report under the provisions of the S.C./S.T. Act.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the investigating officer without considering this fact that the incident, as per the versions of the first information report itself, and also as per the statement of the informant as well as the injured, the entire incident took place inside the house of the complainant and there is no any 'public view' nor any 'public place', thus, no question of public humiliation at all arises, thus, chargesheet which has been submitted against the applicant and other persons, is totally in a mechanical manner. The learned Magistrate also without considering this fact that the incident, as per the plain reading of the first information report took place inside the forecorners of the house and inside the house of the complainant, in a routine manner, took cognizance of the matter under the provisions of S.C./S.T. Act, thus, the counsel submits that the entire proceeding initiated against the applicant is nothing, but an abuse of the process of law and also totally in contradiction with the observation made by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the judgment of the case of Hitesh Verms (supra) , thus, he prays for interim relief.

¶10

The matter requires consideration on the fact and law both.

¶11

Learned A.G.A.-I has accepted notice on behalf of the State i.e. opposite party no.1.

¶12

Issue notice to the opposite party no.2 through R.P.A.D. returnable at an early date.

¶13

Steps in this regard be taken within 10-days from today.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. as well as opp. party No. 2 are allowed 4 weeks' time to file counter affidavit. 2 weeks' time thereafter is allowed to the applicants for filing rejoinder affidavit, if any.

¶15

Put up this case on 24.10.2024 .

¶16

Till the next date of listing the proceedings of Session Case No. 1403 of 2023; State Versus Dharmendra Yadav and others, arising out of First Information Report No. 595 of 2021, Under Section- 323, 308, 504, 506 IPC and section 3(1)Da, Dha, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST Act'), police Station - Para, District - Lucknow, pending in the court of Special Judge (S.C. / S.T.) Act. Lucknow, as well as the impugned summoning order and cognizance order dated 29-032023 and charge sheet no. 1 of 2022 Dated 03-05-2022 in the said case, shall remain stayed in respect of the applicant.

¶17

( Shamim Ahmed, J. )

¶18

Order Date :- 11.6.2024 A.Nigam

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dharmendra Yadav Alias Dharmendra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra Yadav Alias Dharmendra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

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

Rehan @ Rehan Husain @ Syed Rehan Husain Rizvi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Firoz Khan (in Aadhaar Firoz Ahmad Khan) vs Smt. Farhadiba @ Babli and Another

Krishna Kumar @ Suddu vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Raju @ Satyadev Goswami vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Suresh Saroj @ Chhotu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Ajay Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others