Partly allowed

Manish Yadav and Another v. State of Up Others

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2024CRLA/227/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a summons order, the Allahabad High Court quashed proceedings initiated against the appellant Rajnath Yadav. The court held that allegations of caste abuse under the SC/ST Act were not established as the incident only involved telephone communication, whereas the essential test for such offenses requires public view. Proceedings continue against the son.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings initiated in pursuance to Case Crime no. 387 of 2023 against appellant no. 2 (Rajnath Yadav) are quashed and set aside. Trial to proceed against appellant no. 1 (Manish Yadav) only.

Manish Yadav and Another vs State of Up Others — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:141148

¶2

Court No. - 83

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 227 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Manish Yadav And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Anand Srivastava,Avanish Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Avinash Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for appellants and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

As per the compliance affidavit preferred at the behest of the State, learned AGA submitted that the notices have already been served upon opposite party no. 2 and the report regarding service has been appended while preferring compliance affidavit, meaning thereby in spite of service of notice none appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2 either in person or through counsel.

¶8

The instant appeal has been preferred with a prayer to set aside the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 24.08.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act, Ghazipur in Special Session Trial no. 760 of 2023 (State vs. Manish Yadav) through which appellants have been summoned for facing their trial arising out of Case Crime no. 387 of 2023 under sections 376, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(5k), 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Ghazipur pending before the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act, Ghazipur during pendency of appeal.

¶9

At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that both the appellants have already been granted bail by learned trial court but while challenging the veracity of the order dated 24.08.2023 through which learned court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ghazipur took cognizance of the offence under sections 376, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act against appellant no. 2, learned counsel for the appellants sought the attention of the Court over the narration of the FIR as well as the statement recorded by the victim under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C through which it has been demonstrated that all the relationship whatsoever has been perpetuated between the appellant no. 1 and victim was consensual one and as such no cause of action arises in favour of opposite party no. 2 for preferring FIR after the delay of 13 months, moreover, no offence has been made out especially against appellant no. 2 being the father of appellant no. 1 there was only a incident mentioned that the victim went to the residence of appellant no. 1 where she met with appellant no. 2 in a very congenial, harmonious atmosphere but later on over telephone some

¶10

abusive language has been used.

¶11

Learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the appeal and supported the order dated 24.08.2023 passed by learned court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ghazipur through which cognizance of the offence was taken over the statement recorded by the victim as well as the evidences which has been available in the Case Diary and as such the same does not contain any infirmity.

¶12

After having the rival submissions extended by learned counsels for the parties, so far as regarding appellant no. 1 is concerned the cause of action arises in favour of the victim for lodging the FIR when appellant no. 1 denied for performing marriage with the victim but at the same time no specific allegation has been put forward either in the narration of the FIR or at the time of recording statements under sections 161, 164 of Cr.P.C and as such the cognizance under sections 504 of IPC and 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act, 1989 does not attract against the appellant no. 2 since the essence of the Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act, 1989 is strictly based upon the caste abusive language or any instigation if carried out in public place or in public view.

¶13

In the present circumstances as well as after perusal of the records, it is crystal clear that only the allegation made against the appellant no. 2 is with regard to the incident which has been communicated through telephone and as such cognizance under sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act, against appellant no. 2 especially is not tenable in the eye of law. Entire proceeding initiated in pursuance to Case Crime no. 387 of 2023 which culminated into Special Sessions Trial no. 760 of 2023 against the appellant no. 2 (i.e. Rajnath Yadav) is hereby quashed and set aside. However, learned trial court is hereby directed to proceed with the trial against appellant no. 1 (i.e. Manish Yadav) only.

¶14

8. The instant appeal stands partly allowed .

¶15

Order Date :- 30.8.2024 Shaswat

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manish Yadav and Another v. State of Up Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Yadav and Another v. State of Up Others

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

Ranjeet Singh vs State of Up and Another

Roopnarayan Sharma and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Narendra Singh and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Mahaveer vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Kumar Chaurasiya Alias Rajendra Chaurasias and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Atul Pal vs State of Up and Another