Disposed

Dhirendra Pratap Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2024CRLA/2193/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal under Section 14A(1) SC/ST Act challenging a summoning order for offences under Sections 323, 503, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) SC/ST Act. Citing an office inquiry report and a Superintendent of Police report finding the complaint fabricated, the court stayed further proceedings until further orders.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings of Complaint Case No. 609 of 2023 stayed until further orders.

Dhirendra Pratap Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2193 of 2024 Appellant :- Dhirendra Pratap Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Birendra Kumar Yadav,Amit Kumar,Balram Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sandeep Kumar Srivastava

¶2

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶3

List revised.

¶4

None appears for the respondent no. 2 despite the name of Shri Sandeep Kumar Srivastava being indicated in the cause list from the side of respondents.

¶5

The instant appeal under Section 14A(1) of the SC/ST Act has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 22.05.2024 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Raebareilly in Complaint Case No. 609 of 2023. By the said order the appellants have been summoned for an offence under Sections 323, 503, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act

¶6

The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that the respondent no. 2 was working as a fireman in the office when he filed the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for the allegations as have been indicated in the summoning order.

¶7

It is contended that for the said allegations as levelled in the said application an inquiry had been conducted by the office the report of which has been submitted on 05.09.2022, a copy of which is annexure 5 to the appeal, wherein the entire incident has been indicated to be fabricated.

¶8

Subsequent thereto the Superintendent of Police, Raebareli has also submitted his report, a copy of which is annexure 6 to the appeal, wherein again the said incident has been found to be patently fabricated.

¶9

Considering the aforesaid reports, a prima facie case for interference is made out. As such, until further orders, the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 609 of 2023 shall remain stayed.

¶10

All the respondents may file counter affidavit / objections within four weeks to which reply may be filed within next two weeks.

¶11

List thereafter.

¶12

Order Date :- 5.9.2024 J. K. Dinkar

¶13

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

Dhirendra Pratap Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhirendra Pratap Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. 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

Meena vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Gudiya and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home and Another

Rahat Quddusi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Imrana Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. and 2 Others

Santosh Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sanjeev Kumar Paswan vs Sudha