Allowed

Vinay Kumar and 3 Others v. State of Up Others

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2024CRLA/110/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal regarding an alleged SC/ST atrocity involving property demolition, the High Court observed that the FIR lacked specific property details and the final trial report was unavailable. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection of the discharge application and remanded the case to the trial court for a fresh determination and a reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 20.10.2023 set aside; case remanded to trial court for fresh determination and reasoned order.

Vinay Kumar and 3 Others vs State of Up Others — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:116550

¶2

Court No. - 83

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 110 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Vinay Kumar And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of Up Others Counsel for Appellant :- Rahul Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Harsh Narayan Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants under Section 14(1) (i) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act assailing the judgment and order dated 20.10.2023 passed by learned Court of Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Jhansi in Sessions Case No. 471 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 263 of 2022 (State of U.P. Vs. Vinay Yadav and Others) under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act whereby the discharge application filed by the appellants before the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Jhansi has been rejected.

¶8

The allegations outlined in F.I.R. No. 264 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, and 427 of the I.P.C. as well as Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, are that on 20.12.2022, at approximately 11:00 AM, the appellants, accompanied by 10 to 15 unidentified individuals, arrived at the ancestral residence of the informant with a J.C.B. machine and proceeded to demolish the kitchen and toilet. When the informant reprimanded the appellants, they responded with derogatory caste-based language, assaulted the informant, and issued threats of murder if the informant reports the incident.

¶9

The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the case is inherently civil in

¶10

nature and has been improperly characterized as criminal in order to coerce the appellants into relinquishing the property in question, thereby enabling the informant and his family to acquire it. Furthermore, the learned counsel asserts that no civil suit has been filed by the informant or his representatives in any civil court. Conversely, it is the appellants who have initiated revenue and civil proceedings against the informant and his associates. In this regard, learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the order dated 20.12.2021 and submitted that demarcation report dated 22.11.2020 (Annexure No.5) by the Lekhpal has been approved, therefore, it is evident that case set up by the complainant is false and baseless. Learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out that in respect of the alleged occurrence, two more F.I.Rs. bearing case crime No. 263 of 2022 and 265 of 2022 were registered on the basis of the statements made by complainants, namely, Ganesh Ahirwar and Rambabu Barar, respectively.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellants has further drawn the attention of the Court towards Annexure No. 9 which is a photocopy of the memo of plaint under Section 134 of U.P. Revenue Code and the report of Lekhpal dated 22.08.2023 and submitted that the appellants have pursued proceedings under Section 134 of the U.P. Revenue Code (Ajay Kumar and others vs. Nanu and others) to address the alleged illegal construction undertaken by the informant and his associates and the present case has just arisen out of nothing but in vengeance of the aforesaid proceedings under Section 134 U.P. Revenue Code. It is lastly submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the judgment and order dated 20.10.2023 has been passed without examining the materials on record which has resulted into miscarriage of justice to the appellants and prayed that the impugned order dated 20.10.2023 be set-aside and the appellants be discharged.

¶12

Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 as well as learned AGA for the State opposed the prayer as made in the instant appeal and jointly argued that the allegations against the appellants have been substantiated by the witnesses whose statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the

¶13

charge-sheet dated 04.02.2023, under Section 173 Cr.P.C., was filed, leading to the appellants being summoned to face trial. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 contended that at the stage of framing charges, the trial court is required only to review the record to determine whether a prima facie case is established against the accused, and a detailed examination of the prosecution's case is not necessary at this juncture. It was further argued that the impugned order dated 2.10.2023, reflects a correct appreciation of the material on record, and therefore, no interference is warranted.

¶14

Although a perusal of the F.I.R. indicates that the complainant has stated that his father constructed a residential house 50 years ago, the F.I.R. lacks specific details regarding the land on which the construction was undertaken, as well as other relevant information about the property's surroundings. Furthermore, the impugned order dated 20.10.2023, does not provide any particulars about the property or establish a prima facie interest of the complainant in the property. Given that the final report filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is not part of the record, this Court is unable to adjudicate the matter on its merits. Consequently, the case is being remanded to the trial court for a fresh determination after a thorough examination of the case record.

¶15

In view of the above, the impugned order dated 20.10.2023 passed by the learned court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jhansi in Sessions Case No. 471 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 263 of 2022 (State of U.P. Vs. Vinay Yadav and Others) under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Barua Sagar, District-Jhansi is set-aside and the case is remanded back before the trial court, for passing a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law.

¶16

The appeal is allowed .

¶17

Order Date :- 22.7.2024 Karan

¶18

Digitally signed by :- KUMAR KARAN RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinay Kumar and 3 Others v. State of Up Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Kumar and 3 Others v. State of Up Others

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

Ranjeet Singh vs State of Up and Another

Roopnarayan Sharma and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Narendra Singh and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Mahaveer vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Kumar Chaurasiya Alias Rajendra Chaurasias and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Atul Pal vs State of Up and Another