Allowed

Vijay Pratap Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Allahabad HC3 Sept 2024CRLA/2233/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashes a summoning order issued in a complaint case under the SC/ST Act and traps IPC charges. The High Court found a prima facie defect as the record lacks specific averment that the abuse was committed 'knowingly' against a reserved category member, thus preventing immediate bifurcation and inviting objections from the State.

What did the court decide?

Summons order dated 20.03.2024 is stayed pending submission of counter-affidavit by respondents proving section 3(2)(v)(a) applicability.

Vijay Pratap Singh and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2233 of 2024 Appellant :- Vijay Pratap Singh And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ashish Raman Mishra

¶2

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. and Shri Ashish Raman Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.

¶4

Under challenge is summoning order dated 20.03.2024 passed in Complaint Case No. 71 of 2023 in re: Kalpana Devi vs Vijay Pratap Singh and others passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bahraich. By the said order the appellants have been summoned for an offence under Sections 452 and 323 IPC and Section 3(2)(v)(a) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to in as the Act, 1989).

¶5

The argument of learned counsel for the appellants is that perusal of the complaint, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the affidavit, lodged under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. vis a vis the statements as recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C. which have prevailed upon learned court to issue the impugned summoning order would indicate that the offence under Section 3(2)(v)(a) of the Act, 1989 is not made out.

¶6

Elaborating the same, the contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that Section 3(2)(v)(a) of the Act, 1989 provides that whoever not being a member of scheduled caste / scheduled tribe commits any offence specified in any schedule against a person or property knowing that such person is a member of scheduled caste / scheduled tribe or such property belongs to such members shall be punishable for such punishment as specified in IPC and shall be liable to fine.

¶7

The argument is that perusal of complaint and the statements as recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. would indicate that there is no averment or statement for that matter indicating that respondent no. 2 has been abused on caste lines by the appellants knowing that the respondent no. 2 belongs to

¶8

reserved category.

¶9

The further argument is that once the legislature in its wisdom has incorporated the word "knowing" in Section 3(2)(v)(a) of the Act, 1989 consequently the onus of discharging the burden in this regard lies on the complainant and learned trial court should have examined this aspect of the matter prior to issuance of notice to the appellant.

¶10

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as Shri Ashish Raman Mishra, learned counsels for the respondents, have supported the order by contending that as the appellants and the respondent no. 2 belong to the same village as such it was in the knowledge of the appellants that the respondent no. 2 belongs to reserved category and consequently any abuses that were extended by the appellants to the respondent no. 2 would fall within the ambit of "knowingly" extended to the respondent no. 2 and therefore the offence as provided in Section 3(2)(v)(a) of the Act, 1989 would be clearly attracted.

¶11

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and having perused the record it emerges that upon an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. being filed by the respondent no. 2 contending that she has been abused on caste lines and after considering the statements of the complainant and the witness as recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. learned special court has issued the impugned summoning order wherein apart from offences under provisions of I.P.C., Section 3(2)(v)(a) of the Act, 1989 has also been invoked.

¶12

Perusal of provisions of Section 3(2)(v)(a) of the Act, 1989 would indicate that the legislature has indicated that whoever not being a member of scheduled caste / scheduled tribe commits any offence specified in the schedule against a person or property knowing that such person is member of scheduled caste / scheduled tribe then he shall be punishable with punishment. Thus the sine-quanon to invocation of provisions of Section 3(2)(v)(a) of the Act, 1989 would be an averment to the effect either in the complaint or in the statements that abuses have been extended to members of scheduled caste / scheduled tribe by the accused knowingly.

¶13

Prima facie the perusal of the complaint vis a vis the statements as recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. would indicate that neither in the complaint nor in the statements have the persons indicated that abuses have been extended by the appellants to the respondent no. 2 knowingly that the respondent no.2 belongs to the reserved category. Thus merely because the respondent no. 2 has been abused on caste lines without any averment to the effect that the appellants are aware about the caste of respondent no. 2 despite the appellants and the respondent no. 2 belonging to the same village would, in view of this Court at this stage prima facie would not be a ground for invocation of provisions of Section 3(2)(v)(a) of the Act, 1989.

¶14

Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, a prima facie case for interference is made out.

¶15

As such, until further order the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 71 of 2023 in re: Kalpana Devi vs Vijay Pratap Singh and others pending before learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bahraich shall remain stayed.

¶16

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

¶17

List thereafter.

¶18

Order Date :- 3.9.2024 J. K. Dinkar

¶19

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

Vijay Pratap Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Pratap Singh and 4 Others 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

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

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

Narendra Dev vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Jameel Ahmad @ Baure vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 4 Others

Vinod Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Bhagwandeen Gautam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.