Partly allowed

Rajendra and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC23 Jul 2024CRLA/2246/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In response to an appeal against a summoning order, the High Court observed that the counter-blast complaint was filed a year after the appellant's FIR, raising suspicion. Prima facie, a case for interference was found, and proceedings were stayed.

What did the court decide?

Stay granted on the proceedings of Complaint Case No.46 of 2023 In re Pramod Kumar vs Rajendra Prasad & Ors pending objections by the State.

Rajendra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2246 of 2024 Appellant :- Rajendra And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rama Kant Dixit,Ram Vishal Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶4

1. As per office report dated 22.08.2024 notice having been served personally on the respondent No.2, yet nobody responds on behalf of respondent No.2. As such, this Court proceeds to hear the application for interim relief.

¶5

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

3. Instant criminal appeal under Section 14(1)(A) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1989) against the summoning order dated 16.03.2024 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Shrawasti in Complaint Case No.46 of 2023 In re Pramod Kumar vs Rajendra Prasad & Ors, a copy of the said order is part of the appeal.

¶7

4. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that appellant No.1 had lodged an FIR against the respondent No.2 on 13.01.2022 under Section 354 IPC. Copy of the FIR is Annexure-1 to the application for interim relief.

¶8

5. In a counter blast, the respondent No.2 has filed a complaint alleging offences under the provisions of Act, 1989. Copy of the said complaint is Annexure-4 to the application for interim relief. It is argued that perusal of the said complaint would indicate that appellant No.1 is alleged to have purchased cloth worth Rs.7,000/- from the shop of the respondent No.2 and upon respondent No.2 having demanded money for the same, the appellants are said to have committed offence under the provisions of Act, 1989.

¶9

6. The contention is that when the appellant No.1 has himself lodged the FIR in January, 2022 consequently the allegations made in the complaint of appellant No.1 having purchased cloth about a year back from the shop of the respondent No.2, which complaint is dated 11.05.2023, is itself suspicious and would be indicative of the fact that the said complaint has only been lodged as a counter blast to the FIR which has been lodged by appellant No.1. Further this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned trial court while issuing summons.

¶10

7. Keeping in view the aforesaid argument raised by the learned counsel appellants as well as considering the FIR dated 13.1.2022 vis à vis the complaint which has been filed in May, 2023 prima facie a case for interference is made out. As such till further orders proceedings of Complaint Case No.46 of 2023 In re Pramod Kumar vs Rajendra Prasad & Ors shall remain stayed.

¶11

8. Four weeks' time is granted to the respondents to file objections to which reply may be filed within next two weeks.

¶12

9. List thereafter.

¶13

Order Date :- 23.8.2024 prateek

¶14

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajendra and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Anil Nagar vs State of Up and Another

Jitendra Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Raju @ Satyadev Goswami vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Raj Kumar Maurya @ Raju and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Juvenile a in Case Crime No. 85/2019 Thru. Guardian / Brother Prem Nath vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others