Tribhuvan Prasad Singh @ T.P. Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2024CRLA/149/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal under Section 14-A SC/ST Act against rejection of discharge in a complaint alleging caste-based abuse against a Postal Superintendent who had acted against two agents. Court noted the complainant's account was opened at the agents' instance and no withdrawal document was filed; granted time for counter and rejoinder and stayed the impugned proceedings until further order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings stayed until further order; two weeks for counter affidavit, one week thereafter for rejoinder.

Tribhuvan Prasad Singh @ T.P. Singh vs State of U.P… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 149 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- Tribhuvan Prasad Singh @ T.P. Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mukesh Kumar Tewari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Alok Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant.

¶6

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (1) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 10.11.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki in Complaint Case No.166 of 2020 under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(1) (r) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Fatehpur, District Barabanki.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was working on the post of Postal Superintendent, District Barabanki and as per his official work, he visited the post office, Fatehpur, Barabanki and conducted an inspection, in which, irregularities of Umesh Chandra Chaudhary and Ashutosh Chaudhary (agents) were reported and after knowing the facts, agency of the aforesaid agents were cancelled and F.I.R. No.366 of 2019 under Section 353 & 506 I.P.C. was lodged on 18.12.2019. He further submits that matter was referred to the District Magistrate for cancellation of agency vide letter dated 6.11.2019 and thereafter, aforesaid agents came to the Office of appellant and threat was given. He further submits that F.I.R. in question was lodged and the complainant of the present case is used as a tool by the aforesaid agents. He also submits that on the basis of incorrect facts, application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the complainant on 3.2.2020 concealing this fact that his account was opened on the approval of Umesh Chandra Chaudhary and his agency was cancelled due to his act but learned court below treated the application of the complainant as complaint case. He also submits that the alleged act, which is mentioned in the complaint has no concern with

¶8

the appellant and his discharge application was rejected by the court below, therefore, kind indulgence of this Court is necessary.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer of the appellant and submits that there is no illegality in the order passed by the court below and all the defence of the appellant can be raised at the appropriate stage during the course of trial.

¶10

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of the appeal, impugned order as well as other relevant documents, it is evident from the record that appellant is working on the post of Postal Superintendent, District Barabanki and he visited Post Office, Fatehpur, Barabaki for inspection and action was taken against two agents, namely, Umesh Chandra Chaudhary and his son Ashutosh Chaudhary and matter was referred to the District Magistrate for cancellation of their agency but they visited the Office of the appellant and given threat, then F.I.R. No.366 of 2019 was lodged under Section 353 & 506 I.P.C., P.S. Fatehpur, Barabanki. It is also evident from the record that account of the complainant was opened on the initiation of Umesh Chand Chaudhary, as on 1.11.2019 the amount was already withdrawn by the complainant of the present case and on 2.11.2019 no money was withdrawn by him, however, in this regard no any document was placed, therefore, matter requires consideration.

¶11

Two weeks time is granted to learned A.G.A. to file counter affidavit. Thereafter, one weeks time is granted to learned counsel for the applicant to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶12

List immediately thereafter.

¶13

Until further order, impugned proceeding shall remain stayed.

¶14

Order Date :- 26.2.2024 Gaurav/-

¶15

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Tribhuvan Prasad Singh @ T.P. Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tribhuvan Prasad Singh @ T.P. Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anoop Saxena Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. and 5 Others

Mohd. Ashfaque Alias Kallu Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and 4 Others

Rohit Patel Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ashutosh Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Mahmood Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Sameem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Home, U.P. and Another