Partly allowed

Anand Swaroop and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Allahabad HC14 Nov 2024CRLA/3582/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court notice-appellate court issues notice to opposite party no.2 in a stay application against an impugned criminal order under the SC/ST Act, while granting interim protection to appellants from the effect of that order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 17.08.2024 or any process issued pursuant thereto shall not be given effect to the appellants.

Anand Swaroop and 2 Others vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3582 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- Anand Swaroop And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sharvan Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants for setting aside the impugned order dated 17.08.2024 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST Act in Criminal Complaint Case No.72 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3 (1) (dha) SC/ST Act (Badlu Ram vs. Anand Swaroop and others), Police Station Gilaula, District Sharwasti.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case, which is nothing but an attempt at armtwisting by the opposite party no.2 for the reason, that earlier a case was lodged by the appellant no.2 against the real grandchild of opposite party no.2, Kanhaiya Lal alias Kanhaiya in the form of Case Crime No.28 of 2022, under Sections 354(A), 504 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Gilaula, District Sharwasti. This incident had occurred on 12.01.2022 wherein the grandchild of opposite party no.2 has come to be convicted vide judgment and order dated 09.02.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Shrawasti in Special Sessions Trial No.160 of 2022.

¶8

His further submission is that during the pendency of aforesaid case, and only with a view to exert undue pressure to settle the dispute on the terms of opposite party no.2, an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. came to be filed which was treated to be a complaint and which ultimately led to passing of the impugned order dated

¶9

17.08.2024. He, thus, submits that the present proceeding is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that this is not a stage where such disputed facts may be adjudicated. However, he has been unable to dispute the aforesaid factual submissions.

¶11

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of record, the matter requires consideration.

¶12

Notice on behalf of opposite party no.1 has been accepted by the learned Additional Government Advocate.

¶13

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

¶14

Steps be taken within a week.

¶15

Let counter affidavits be filed within four weeks.

¶16

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

¶17

List this case after six weeks along with service report.

¶18

Meanwhile, the impugned order dated 17.08.2024 or any process issued pursuant thereto, shall not be given effect to qua the appellants, namely, Anand Swaroop, Kamlesh Kumar and Ghanshyam.

¶19

Order Date :- 14.11.2024 Mahesh

¶20

Digitally signed by :- MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anand Swaroop and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Swaroop and 2 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramprakash Sahu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Mukesh vs State of U.P.

Rajesh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vishal Shukla @ Pranjul Shukla and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Aabid and 8 Others vs State of Up and Another

Raj Kumar @ Dev Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another