Disposed

Vijay Bahadur Singh Alias Jay Singh and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2024A482/6206/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application seeking quashing of cognizance under the SC/ST Act was adjourned with a stay. The High Court issued notice to respondents for filing counter-affidavits to examine the prima facie case.

What did the court decide?

Application stayed; notice issued to respondents for counter affidavits; hearing fixed for later date.

Vijay Bahadur Singh Alias Jay Singh… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 13 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6206 of 2024 Applicant :- Vijay Bahadur Singh Alias Jay Singh And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶3

Heard learned Counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A for the Stateopposite party and perused the material placed on record.

¶4

The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicants seeking quashing of the impugned cognizance and summoning order dated 18.08.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/ Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Unnao in ST No. 1013 of 2023; State vs. Rahul and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 109 of 2022, under Section 147, 148, 323, 307 and 427 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Maurawan, DistrictUnnao. The applicant is also challenging the charge sheet No.07A/2023 dated 09.06.2023 filed by the police against the applicant.

¶5

Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to village party Bandi. He further submits that no such incident ever took place as alleged by the opposite party No.2 and the entire story narrated in the F.I.R. is based on false and fabricated facts. He further submits that the applicant belongs to forward caste and the opposite party No.2 belongs to SC/ST category, the opposite party No.2 has lodged the present F.I.R. against the applicant only with the intention to get some financial aid from the State-Exchequer. He further submits that the F.I.R. has been lodged after two days of the alleged incident without any plausible explanation, thus, it appears that the F.I.R. has been lodged after getting some legal advice. He further submits that the applicant was not present at the spot at the

¶6

time of incident and there is no independent eye witness of the alleged incident.

¶7

Learned Counsel for the applicants further submits that the ingredients of Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act are not attracted in the present case as the alleged incident took place inside the house of the opposite party No.2, which is his own admitted case, thus, he submits that there was no public view nor it was a public place. He further submits that the opposite party No.2 has alleged in the F.I.R. that the applicant has abused him with caste language but he did not mention any specific word, which would come within the ambit of provisions of SC/ST Act.

¶8

Learned Counsel for the applicants further submits that the Investigating Officer did not consider the factual and legal provisions of SC/ST Act and has submitted the charge sheet under the provisions of SC/ST Act and under the influence of opposite party No.2 only to give gravity to the alleged offence. He further submits that the learned Magistrate also took cognizance and summoned the applicant to face trial without appreciating the material available on record and without considering the legal aspects of the case. He further submits that learned Magistrate did not even peruse the contents of the F.I.R. before taking cognizance on the charge sheet and has overlooked the factual matrix of the case, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶9

Learned Counsel for the applicants further submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in other sections of I.P.C. just to give gravity to the alleged offence, whereas, the ingredients of other Sections of I.P.C. are not attracted in the present case.

¶10

In support of his arguments, learned Counsel for the applicant places reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710 and judgment and order of this Court passed in Bhaiya Lal Singh vs. State of U.P. and 2 others in re: Criminal Appeal No.739 of

¶11

2022 order dated 19.12.2023 , thus, he submits that the ratio of law as applicable in the aforesaid judgments is also applicable in the present case and prays for some interim relief.

¶12

In view of the above, the matter requires consideration on fact and law.

¶13

Learned A.G.A-I has accepted notice on behalf of State-opposite party No.1.

¶14

Let notice be issued to opposite party No. 2 by R.P.A.D. returnable at an early date.

¶15

Steps to be taken within seven working days' from today.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No.1 as well as opposite party No.2 may file their counter affidavits within three weeks' from today. One week' time thereafter shall be available to learned Counsel for the applicants for filing rejoinder affidavit.

¶17

Accordingly, list/put up this case on 16.08.2024 along with A482 No. 4744 of 2024.

¶18

Till the next date of listing, further proceedings in pursuance of the impugned cognizance and summoning order dated 18.08.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/ Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Unnao in ST No. 1013 of 2023; State vs. Rahul and others, arising out of Case Crime No.109 of 2022, under Section 147, 148, 323, 307 and 427 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Maurawan, District-Unnao, the charge sheet No.07A/2023 dated 09.06.2023 filed by the police against the applicants and the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case shall remain stayed qua the applicants.

¶19

Order Date :- 15.7.2024/Mohit Singh/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vijay Bahadur Singh Alias Jay Singh and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Bahadur Singh Alias Jay Singh and Others 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prema Kumari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Social Welfare U.P. Govt. Lko. and 3 Others

Amit Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 2 Others

Saumitra Shukla vs Govt. of India Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry Dairying, New Delhi and 4 Others

Lalit Kant Verma and 18 Others vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Women Welfare (Mission Vatsalya Yojna ) New Delhi and 3 Others

Suneeta Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Javed Alam (Husaband) and 6 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another