Dismissed

Ram Jagat v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC27 Sept 2024CRLA/3079/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against rejection of a complaint case under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act filed over two years after the incident, alleging intentional insult under Section 3(1)(x). The court found no intentional caste-based insult shown in the F.I.R. and no medical certificate for claimed injuries, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the Special Judge's order.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ram Jagat vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:67327

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3079 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Ram Jagat Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- D.P. Dutt Tiwari,Dharmendra Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard.

¶7

The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the judgment and order dated 22.08.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1989"), District Ambedkar Nagar, whereby the complaint case registered on the protest application filed by the appellant has been rejected.

¶8

A perusal of the F.I.R. which has been lodged by the appellant on 02.04.2015, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the affidavit, would indicate about an incident which has occurred on 01.01.2013 i.e. the F.I.R. has been lodged almost after two and a half years of the said incident. No reasons have been indicated in the instant appeal as to why the said F.I.R. had been lodged after a substantial period of time.

¶9

Upon a pointed query being put to the learned counsel for the appellant as to whether the averments as indicated in the F.I.R. are true, Shri D.P. Dutt Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant states that in fact the correct averments have been indicated in the F.I.R.

¶10

The offence being indicated by learned counsel for the appellant is said to have been committed under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989 (unamended).

¶11

A perusal of the unamended provision of the aforesaid provisions of the Act, 1989 would indicate that the same pertains to where a person intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled caste or a Scheduled Tribe at any place within a public view.

¶12

From the F.I.R. itself, it does not emerge anywhere that the incident, which has occurred, has been done by the respondents intentionally meaning thereby that they knew about the appellant belonging to a reserved category and thereafter had intentionally insulted or intimidated him.

¶13

Even otherwise, for the injuries which are said to have been suffered by the appellant, no medical certificate in this regard has been filed by the appellant when the case was registered as a complaint case, meaning thereby, that no medical report was filed along with the complaint case.

¶14

Keeping in view of the aforesaid facts, no case for interference is made out.

¶15

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

¶16

Order Date :- 27.9.2024 S. Shivhare

¶17

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

Ram Jagat v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ram Jagat v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dilshaad Khan and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko and Another

Manish Prakash Lal @ Manish Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Sachin Verma Vs Additional Principal Judge (Family Court) Court No. 2 Sitapur and Another

Devendra Singh vs Union of India Thru. It Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunications and 2 Others

Hari Om vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. of Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Mohammad Ibrahim vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another