Disposed

Dr. Kaushlendra Vikram Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2024CRLA/2386/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act against a summoning order charging the appellant under IPC Sections 504, 506 and SC/ST Act provisions. The court found prima facie that the appellant's role was only that of an instigator, who appears to have no role in such offences, and stayed further proceedings until objections are examined.

What did the court decide?

Further proceedings of Sessions Trial No.616 of 2024 stayed until further orders; respondents may file objections within four weeks.

Dr. Kaushlendra Vikram Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2386 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- Dr. Kaushlendra Vikram Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Amrendra Nath Tripathi,Ranjeet Kumar Pal,Sanjeev Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Prashant Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Shri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Shri Rajat Pratap Singh, learned counsel who has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.2 which is taken on record.

¶6

The instant appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1989") has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 23.04.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki in Sessions Trial No.616 of 2024 in Re: State Vs. Dr. Kaushlendra Vikram Mishra and Another, whereby the appellant has been summoned for the offences under Sections 504 & 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(r) & (s) and Section 3(2)(va) of the Act, 1989.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is working as a Principal of Ram Nagar P.G. College, Ram Nagar, Barabanki.

¶8

An F.I.R. has been lodged by the respondent No.2 for the offences under Sections 504 & 506 of the I.P.C. on 21.05.2023. The copy of the F.I.R. is annexure 1 to the affidavit. Subsequent thereto, respondent No.2 informed the Investigating Officer that

¶9

he belongs to the reserved category with the result that the summoning order has been issued apart from the provisions of the I.P.C., under the the aforesaid provisions of the Act, 1989.

¶10

The argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that a perusal of the averments made in the F.I.R. would indicate that the offence under the provisions of the Act, 1989 has not been committed by him rather has been committed by a temporary Lecturer namely Dr. Sanjay Tiwari and the F.I.R. only assigns role to the appellant of having allegedly instigated Dr. Sanjay Tiwari.

¶11

A perusal of the provisions of Section 3(1)(r) & (s) along with Section 3(2)(va) of the Act, 1989, prima facie, indicates that the instigator has got no role in the matter.

¶12

Responding to that, Shri Rajat Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 states that a perusal of the statement of respondent No.2, as recorded on 08.07.2023, a copy of which has been filed as annexure No.17 to the affidavit, would indicate the role of the appellant in the entire episode and thus, clearly an offence under the aforesaid provisions of the Act, 1989 is made out.

¶13

A perusal of the said statement would indicate that the respondent No.2 has clearly indicated that it was Dr. Sanjay Tiwari who had abused him on caste lines and even, after the respondent No.2 had left the chamber of the Principal, that Dr. Tiwari followed and again abused him and also threatened him and that the appellant is a partner in the said episode.

¶14

The aforesaid statement may have to be read along with the alleged F.I.R. which has been lodged by the respondent No.2 inasmuch as, a perusal of the said F.I.R. when read vis-a-vis the

¶15

statement of the respondent No.2 would indicate the role of the appellant, which is of he having harassed the respondent No.2 from time to time.

¶16

Once again, prima facie, a perusal of the Section 3(1)(r) & (s) as well as Section 3(1)(va) of the Act, 1989 and records would indicate that both from the perusal of the F.I.R. and the statement of the respondent No.2, the role of the appellant only appears to be of an instigator and as, already indicated above, prima facie an instigator appears to have no role for an offence under the Act, 1989.

¶17

In view of the aforesaid, prima facie case for interference is made out. As such, until further order, further proceedings of Sessions Trial No.616 of 2024 in Re: State Vs. Dr. Kaushlendra Vikram Mishra and Another shall remain stayed.

¶18

The respondents may file objections within four weeks to which a reply, if any, be filed within next two weeks.

¶19

List thereafter.

¶20

Order Date :- 6.9.2024 S. Shivhare

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dr. Kaushlendra Vikram Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Kaushlendra Vikram Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of 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

Kamlesh Kumar Chauhan vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dayashankar Yadav vs State of Up and Another

Ramesh Kumar vs State of Up and 3 Others

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

Smt. Jareena vs Daman Preet Arora, District Panchayat Raj Officer, Distt. Faizabad / Ayodhya

Saurabh vs State of U.P. and Another