Remanded

Atul Kumar @ Atul Verma v. State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2024CRLA/1594/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act, the court noted a 3.5-month unexplained delay in lodging the FIR regarding a love affair dispute involving a minor-appellant and a major-respondent. Relied on Supreme Court precedents regarding false promises of marriage. The sessions proceedings were stayed pending a counter- affidavit.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings of Session Case No. 2275 of 2023 pending before the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Barabanki are stayed till the next date of listing.

Atul Kumar @ Atul Verma vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1594 of 2024 Appellant :- Atul Kumar @ Atul Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another

¶2

Counsel for Appellant :- Vinay Kumar Verma,Neetesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the respondent no. 1.

¶5

Nobody has appeared on behalf of respondent no. 2 despite a notice having been issued by this Court vide order dated 10.05.2024 and the office report dated 29.05.2024 indicating that as per the report of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki notice has been served on respondent no.2 thorough heir. Thus, the Court proceeds to hear the matter.

¶6

The instant criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1989) has been filed against the charge-sheet no. 1 dated 12.10.2023 as well as the summoning order dated 18.11.2023 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Barabanki in Session Case No. 2275 of 2023, Case Crime No. 602 of 2023 under Sections 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Fatehpur, District Barabanki.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that at the time of the incident, the appellant was aged about 18 years and the respondent no. 2 was aged about 23 years. Both had a love affair. The respondent no. 2 also maintained Facebook profile ID with fake name "Raj Kumar Hindu" as well as profile of "Anamika Rawat" on Instagram. She had uploaded certain reels and photographs on social media i.e. Facebook and Instagram. Learned counsel for the appellant also states that

¶8

certain friend requests had also been sent to the appellant thereafter friendship occurred between the parties.

¶9

An averment has been made in paragraph 7 of the affidavit filed in support of appeal that there was demand of Rs 80,000/raised by the complainant / respondent no. 2 herein from the appellant and as the appellant was unable to pay such amount the respondent no. 2 threatened the appellant to falsely implicate him in criminal case. Upon refusal to pay the aforesaid amount an FIR dated 26.09.2023, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the affidavit, was lodged by the respondent no. 2 under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(V) of the Act 1989 wherein it was alleged by the respondent no. 2 that the appellant and the respondent no. 2 remained together for the period from 18.05.2023 to 03.06.2023 and physical relation was also maintained by the appellant with the respondent no. 2 on the false pretext of marriage. Thereafter when the family members of the appellant got to know about it and as the respondent no. 2 belongs to Schedule Caste, thereafter the appellant and his family members refused to marry and sent her out with the result that respondent no. 2 was constrained to lodge the aforesaid FIR. In the statement of respondent no. 2 under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., copies of which are annexure CA-2 to the counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A., the respondent no. 2 has supported the version as made in the FIR and of the appellant having kept the respondent no. 2 with him till 03.06.2023 and having turned her out after maintaining physical relation on the false pretext of marriage.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant states that the relevant aspect of the matter is that if as per the version made in the FIR and the statement made by the respondent no. 2, are taken at face value, the appellant is claimed to have kept the respondent

¶11

no. 2 from 18.05.2023 to 03.06.2023 and thereafter the aforesaid situation arose wherein she claims to have been turned out. However, the FIR has been lodged on 26.09.2023 i.e. after more than 3 and 1/2 months without explaining the delay.

¶12

The other aspect of the matter is that placing reliance on judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs The State of Maharashtra and another, 2019 (9) SCC 608 the argument is that Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering a similar matter and after going through the allegations levelled in the FIR was of the view that once there is no allegation in the FIR that a person's promise to marry the complainant was done in bad faith and with an intention to deceive her then the allegations made in the FIR belie the case that she was deceived by the appellant on false promise of marriage.

¶13

Further placing reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Gulati vs State of Haryana, 2013 (7) SCC 675 the argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when the complainant was a major and had adequate intelligence and maturity to understand the significance and the morality associated with the act and was also conscious of the fact that the marriage may not take place on account of various consideration including the caste factor then it would be difficult to prove the allegations. Thus it is contended that the entire case lodged against the appellant is patently false and misconceived.

¶14

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has supported the allegations levelled against the appellant on the basis of FIR and statement of the complainant made under Sections 161 and

¶15

164 Cr.P.C.

¶16

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and having perused the record it emerges that the FIR has been lodged by the respondent no. 2 on 26.09.2023 for incidents between the period from 18.05.2023 to 03.06.2023. No reasons emerge from perusal of FIR or even as per the statement of the respondent no. 2 as recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C as to the delay of 3 and 1/2 months in lodging of the FIR.

¶17

Prima facie from perusal of social media profile of the respondent no. 2, the extracts of which are filed as annexure 2 of the affidavit, something more emerges than the allegations as levelled in the FIR.

¶18

Accordingly, considering the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (supra) and Deepak Gulati (supra) as well as the age of appellant vis a vis the age of the respondent no. 2 which is 18 and 23 and years on the date of the incident, as such, a prima facie case for interference is made out.

¶19

As such, till the next date of listing, the proceedings of Session Case No. 2275 of 2023 in re: Government vs Atul Verma pending before the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Barabanki shall remain stayed.

¶20

It is open for the respondent no. 2 to file counter affidavit / objections to the appeal within four weeks to which reply may be filed within next two weeks.

¶21

List thereafter.

¶22

Order Date :- 11.7.2024 J. K. Dinkar

¶23

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

Atul Kumar @ Atul Verma v. State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atul Kumar @ Atul Verma v. State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of 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

Deepak Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Angad Rai and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and Another

Khaderu @ Jang Bahadur vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Rakesh @ Tapu vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Lav Kumar Singh vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Intelligence Ministry of Finance Govt. of India

Irfan vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another