Disposed

Suresh Chandra @ Suresh Godiya and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Nov 2024CRLA/3553/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Appeal No. 3553 of 2024, the High Court reviewed the High Court of Judicature Appellants challenged a summoning order in a case under the SC/ST Act, IPC. The court directed an interim stay on the execution of the summoning order against the present applicants pending final disposal, while issuing notice and timelines for affidavits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned summoning order shall not be given effect to qua the present applicants No.1 to 4.

Suresh Chandra @ Suresh Godiya and 3… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3553 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- Suresh Chandra @ Suresh Godiya And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Nisha Srivastava,Surendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶5

Heard Ms. Nisha Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the Staterespondent No.1.

¶6

The instant criminal appeal under Section 14A(1) of SC/ST Act has been filed by the appellants with a prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 17.05.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Barabanki in Sessions Case SC/ST Act No.2097 of 2023 (Meenakshi vs. Suresh Godiya & others), under Sections 379, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Asandara, District Barabanki as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case by the respondent No.2, who has lodged a false complaint in order to harass the appellants due to annoyance and village party bandi. She further submits that appellants have no concern with the alleged incident.

¶8

Her further submission is that house of the appellants and the respondent No.2 are in close vicinity and there are some differences between them. She has further submitted that the learned trial court has failed to apply its judicial mind as would be apparent from the fact that in the complaint filed by respondent No.2/complainant there was a mention that on the date of alleged incident, appellants also damaged the wall of the

¶9

house of the respondent No.2 which caused the loss of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. Her further contention is that despite this specific allegation, learned trial court has not summoned the appellants for the offence under Section 427 I.P.C. meaning thereby the learned trial court did not find any evidence in support of such allegation and thus found part of allegations to be untrue.

¶10

Her further submission is that appellant Nos.2 and 3, namely, Abhishek Kashyap and Ankush Kashyap are minor children aged about 11 and 12 years respectively. They are juvenile. The fact that they are juvenile, has not been mentioned by the complainant. She further submits that the impugned summoning order is nothing but an attempt of arm-twisting. She further submits that earlier on 07.07.2023 also an F.I.R. was lodged by father of complainant against the appellants bearing F.I.R./Case Crime No.0293 of 2023 for the offence under Sections 323, 324, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Asandara, District Barabanki, a copy of F.I.R. is annexed as Annexure No.3 to the instant appeal.

¶11

Her further submission is that there is no evidence on record to suggest that ingredients which are required to attract the provision of Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST Act are lacking. She, thus, submits that the impugned criminal proceedings deserves to be quashed

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the aforesaid prayer by submitting that learned trial court has recorded specific finding and only thereafter has proceeded to issue process against appellants.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for parties and keeping in view the submissions advanced by them, the matter requires consideration.

¶14

Issue notice to respondent no.2, returnable at an early date.

¶15

Steps be taken within a week.

¶16

Let counter affidavit be filed within four weeks.

¶17

A week's time thereafter shall be available to learned counsel for the applicants to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶18

List immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period.

¶19

Meanwhile, impugned summoning order dated 17.05.2024 and any process issued, pursuant thereto, shall not be given effect to qua the present applicants No.1 to 4, namely, Suresh Chandra @ Suresh Godiya, Abhishek Kashyap, Ankush Kashyap and Anjali only.

¶20

(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)

¶21

Order Date :- 13.11.2024 Shubhankar

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Suresh Chandra @ Suresh Godiya and 3 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Chandra @ Suresh Godiya and 3 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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

Virendra Pal Singh vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Udayveer Singh vs State of Up and 5 Others

Shailendra Kumar vs the State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt. Rama vs Abhishek Shukla, Zila Panchayat Raj Adhikari, Sultanpur

Melhu Alias Imamuddin vs State of U.P. and Another