Dismissed

Smt. Geeta v. State of U.P. through Prin. Secy., Home Department Civil Secretariat, Lucknow and others

Allahabad HC9 May 2024CRLA/1576/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a criminal appeal filed under Section 14A(1) of the SC/ST Act. The appellant challenged the trial court's dismissal of her Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application. The High Court held that the application sought to convert a pending civil dispute into a criminal case to secure a favorable order, constituting an abuse of process of law.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal No. 1576 of 2024 was dismissed at the admission stage.

Smt. Geeta vs State of U.P. through Prin. Secy., Home… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36587

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1576 of 2024 Appellant :- Smt. Geeta Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy., Home Department Civil Secretariat, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Devendra Pratap,Shashank Shekhar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Heard counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

Instant appeal under Section 14A(1) of Scheduled Cases and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "SC/ST Act"), the appellant has been filed for quashing the judgment and order dated 03.04.2024 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act, District- Sitapur, in Misc. Case No. 26/2024 (Smt. Geeta vs. Shantiswaroop and Others) Police Station- Maholi, District- Sitapur.

¶7

By the impugned order dated 03.04.2024, the trial court dismissed the complaint/application preferred by the appellant/victim under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

¶8

Brief facts of the case are to the effect that the appellant preferred an application dated 29.01.2024 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the trial Court i.e. Special Judge, SC/ST Act, District- Sitapur. According to the same, on 05.01.2024 at about 08 a.m. respondents were obstructing the four feet wide 'way' ( Kuliya ), connecting the main kharanja road available to the appellant and therefore, the appellant opposed the private respondents and in turn, the respondents assaulted the appellant and her son and also used abusive language and made casteist remarks but FIR was not lodged and for this reason, the appellant preferred an application dated 29.01.2024 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, DistrictSitapur.

¶9

The trial Court, after considering the allegations made in the application 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant, called for a report and in response, the report was submitted by the Police Officer concerned of Police Station- Mahauli, District - Sitapur.

¶10

As per the police report regarding civil dispute related to the 'way' in issue, the suit instituted by the appellant is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sitapur.

¶11

The trial Court, thereafter, considering the aforesaid, passed the order under appeal dated 03.04.2024, which reads as under:

¶12

" पपककरकरकययगयय।

¶13

पकरररनयगयतकककओरससपकररनकपतअरतरगतधकरक 156(3) दद0 प 0 सद0 इसकरन कससकरपसतपतककयकगयकहहककपकरररनयवकवपकयगणकसमककनआसपकसहहतरक पकरररनयकसमककनकसपकसखडरजसतकजकनसकसरलयसचकरकफटककककरलयकहह। कवपकयगणगपणडईकसबलपरपकरररनयककककरलयकबरदकररहसरसतबपकरररनयनस कदनकदक 5.01.2024 ककसमयकरयब 8 बजसमनकककयकतकपकरररनयककगकरलयकददयव पकरररनयकसपपतककमकरनसकसरलयसददड़कयक।पकरररनयवउसककपपतघरममघपसगयसतक कवपकयगणनसघरममघपसकरपकरररनयकससकरमकरपयटककवअभदतकककवउसकसपपत ककभयमकरकपयटक।शकरपरकईलकगआगयसतकजकनससमकरनसककधमककदसतसहहयस भकगगयस।तबपकरररनयउसयकदनरकनसगययएकरलरखतपकररनकपतरकनसपरकदयक लसककनककईककयरवकहयनहयहहईतबएकपकररनकपतशयमकनपपरलसअधयककमहकदय, सयतकपपरकककदयकरजसपरभयककईककयरवकहयनहयहहई।

¶14

सपनकतरकपतकवलयककअवलककनककयक।

¶15

पकरररनयककओरससपसतपतपकररनकपतकसआलककममरकनकमहकलयरजलकसयतकपपरसस आखयकआहहतककगययरजसममयहकरनककयकगयकहहककआवसकदककवकवपकयकस मधयउपरककगलयककलसकरकववकदचलरहकहहरजसकससमबरधममदयवकनयमपकदमक अरतगरतधकरक 39 कवकशषअनपतकषअरधकनयमशयमकननरसकवलजजजज0 कड0 सयतकपपर ममआवसकदकककसकवरददकयरककयकगयकहह।उकपकरणममरकनकसरकनययपरककई अकभयकगपदजयककतनहहहह।

¶16

पकररनकपतकसअवलककनसससपषहहककआवसकदककनसपकररनकपतममयहकहकहहकक कवपकयगणदकरकउसकसघरकसपकसबनयककरलयकककबरदककयकजकरहकरकजबमनक ककयकतककवपकयगणनसमकरकपयटक, जककतसजचकगकरलययवजकनससमकरनसककधमकक दयगयय।

¶17

रकनसससपकपआखयककसअनपसकरउकपकरणमममकमलकगलयकसकववकदसससमबनरधत हहरजससमबरधममदकनकपकककसमधयदयवकनयककमपकदमकभयचलरहकहह।रकनसकक आखयकममदकनकपकककसमधयगलयकककववकदहकनकदशकरयकगयकहह।इसपककर पतकवलयपरउपलबधरकनसककआखयकवपकरररनयकसकरनकसससपषहहककदकनकपकक ममजककववकदहहवहदयवकनयपकककतककमकमलकहहरजसममदयवकनयवकदपचरलतभयहह। इसरलएआपरकरधकवकदपदजयककतककयसजकनसककककईऔकचतयनहहहह।मकमलसकक कनसतकरणरसकवलवकदकसमकधयमससहयककयकजकसकतकहह।इससमबरधममबय. वमकटसशवरनवअरयबनकमपय. बकरकवटचलमकक. अपयलनद0 1555/2022 SLP(Crl.) No. 3411/2021 मममकननययउचचतमरयकयकलयनसयहअवधकररत ककयकहहकक ''ऐसकपतयतहकतकहहककपकककसमधयवयककगतदयवकनयकववकद आपरकरधकपककयकममपररवकतरतहकगयकहहजककककवरधवरयकयकलयककपककयककक दपरपयकगकरनसकसअकतररकअरयकपछनहहहह।''

¶18

इसकसअकतररकवककदनयदकरकमकरपयटदकरकमकरपयटकससमबरधममककईकचककतसयय आखयकभयदकरखलनहहककगययहहरजसससमकरपयटककघटनकभयपमककणतनहह हकतयहह

¶19

इसपककरपसतपतपकरणममआवसकदककककओरससपसतपतपकररनकपतसवयककरककयक जकनकरयकयककचतपतयतनहहहकतकहह।तदनपसकरआवसकदककदकरकपसतपतपकररनकपत अरतरगतधकरक 156 (3) दद0 प 0 सद0 कनरसतककयसजकनसयकगयहह।

¶20

आवसकदककदकरकपसतपतपकररनकपतअरतगरतधकरक 156 (3)दद0 प 0 सद0 कनरसतककयक जकतकहह।पतकवलयअकभलसखकगकरममसदकचतककजकयस।"

¶21

Impeaching the order under appeal dated 03.04.2024, learned counsel for the appellant says that in dismissing the complaint case, the trial

¶22

court committed error of fact and law both as the case was made out against the accused. As such, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter.

¶23

Per contra, learned A.G.A. stated that the order under appeal dated 03.04.2024 is not liable to be interfered with as it appears that the appellant wants to convert a civil dispute into a criminal case. He also submitted that undisputedly civil suit instituted by the appellant is pending and this suit relates to the 'way' (Kulia) connecting the main kharanja road and accordingly, it appears that with an intention to pressurize the respondents to get favourable order in the civil suit, the appellant preferred an application under Section 156(3) CrPC, which is nothing but abuse of process of law. Prayer is to dismiss the appeal.

¶24

He further submitted that it appears that with ulterior motive including the financial assistant provided by the State, the present complaint was filed.

¶25

Considered the aforesaid and perused the record.

¶26

Upon due consideration, this Court finds that the complaint/application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has rightly been dismissed by the trial court. It is for the reason that to the view of this Court, the appellant wants to convert a civil dispute into a criminal case so as to get favourable order in the civil suit instituted by the appellant, which relates to the 'way' ( Kulia ) connecting the main kharanja road available to the appellant and accordingly, the application preferred by the appellant under Section 156(3) CrPC is nothing but abuse of process of law.

¶27

For the aforesaid, the present appeal has no force. Accordingly, it is dismissed at the admission stage.

¶28

No order as to costs.

¶29

Order Date :- 13.5.2024/(Manoj K.)

¶30

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Geeta v. State of U.P. through Prin. Secy., Home Department Civil Secretariat, Lucknow and others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Geeta v. State of U.P. through Prin. Secy., Home Department Civil Secretariat, Lucknow and others

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

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Dileep Singh Son of Ram Gopal Singh (Second Bail) Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Home

Ameen Ali and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Mosim Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and Another

Nagendra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Sateera Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others