Disposed

Ram Charan Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home and Another

Allahabad HC6 Jun 2024CRLA/1834/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal under Section 14A(2) SC/ST Act against framing of charges for offences arising from a land sale dispute. Court found prima facie that the FIR was lodged to pressure the appellant in a civil dispute, issued notice to respondent No.2, and stayed trial proceedings till next listing.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 1031 of 2022 stayed till next date of listing; notice issued to respondent No.2.

Ram Charan Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1834 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- Ram Charan Yadav Respondent :- State Of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Dilip Mani, Devam Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G. A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Devam Shukla, the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Angad Kumar Vishwakarma, the learned A. G. A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

By means of the instant appeal under Section 14 A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the appellant has challenged the validity of order dated 04.04.2023 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST Act, Lucknow, framing charges in Sessions Trial No. 1031 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 424 of 2021, under Sections 406, 504, 506 I. P. C. and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) SC/ ST Act, Police Station- Maal, District- Lucknow.

¶7

The private respondent No. 2 had lodged First Information Report bearing No. 424 of 2021 on 13.10.2021 against the appellant, alleging therein that she had purchased a plot of land from the appellant for a total sale consideration of Rs. 11,00000/-, out of which she had transferred Rs. 4,000/through RTGS on 12.03.2021 and she had paid some amount in installments, totalling to Rs. 9,60,000/-, When the informant asked the appellant to execute the sale deed, the appellant avoided the same and he abused the informant.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the First Information Report indicates a property dispute as it alleges non execution of the sale deed by the appellant. He has relied upon

¶9

the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B. Venkateswaran and Others vs. P. Bhaktvatchalam in Criminal Appeal No. 1555 of 2022 decided on 05.01.2023 and Sarabjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab and Another(2023) 5 SCC 360.

¶10

Prima facie it appears from the material available on record that even as per the version of the respondent No. 2, she had entered into an agreement to purchase some immovable property from the appellant for a total consideration of Rs. 11,00000/- out of which Rs. 4,00000/- were paid through banking channel and admittedly, the entire sale consideration has not been paid. There is no averment of execution of any registered agreement to sell the property. No notice for execution of sale deed has been given by the vendee. Prima facie it appears that the First Information Report has been lodged to put pressure on the appellant in the civil dispute between the parties.

¶11

Matter requires consideration.

¶12

Issue notice to respondent No.2, returnable at an early date.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant shall take requisite steps be taken in this regard within three days.

¶14

List this case in the week commencing 15.07.2024.

¶15

In view of the aforesaid, it is provided that till the next date of listing, proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 1031 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 424 of 2021, under Sections 406, 504, 506 I. P. C. and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) SC/ ST Act, Police Station- Maal, District- Lucknow., shall remain stayed.

¶16

Order Date :- 6.6.2024 (Manoj K.)

¶17

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

Ram Charan Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Charan Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home 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

Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rajaram Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko

Firoz Khan (in Aadhaar Firoz Ahmad Khan) vs Smt. Farhadiba @ Babli and Another

Parmanand Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Kalim @ Mohammad Kalim Khan and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Krishna Kumar @ Suddu vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others