Disposed

Nem Singh v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC24 Jul 2024CRLA/4124/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against rejection of a Section 156(3) CrPC application seeking FIR registration for SC/ST Act offences. Counsel conceded a complaint remained permissible; the appeal was disposed of with liberty to file a complaint within four weeks, to be handled per Chapter XV CrPC.

What the court decided

AI extract

Nem Singh vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:143907

¶2

Court No. - 83

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4124 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Nem Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ajay Mishra,Shri Krishna Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Having regard to the order intended to the passed, the service of notice to the opposite party nos. 2 to 7 is hereby dispensed with, as the opposite party nos. 2 to 7 shall not be adversely affected by the order intended to be passed.

¶8

The instant appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellant with the prayer to allow the present criminal appeal and set-aside the judgment and order dated 14.01.2021 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Mathura in Criminal Misc. Case No. 308 of 2020, (Nem Singh Vs. Jitendra Fauji and others), under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., Police Station Vrindavan, District Mathura and to direct the police authority concerned to lodge the first information report against the opposite party nos. 2 to 7.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court by passing the impugned order has rejected the prayer of the appellant/informant for investigation of the allegations mentioned therein without appreciating the facts in right perspective while the commission of cognizable offences as well as the offences pertaining to the SC/ST Act were evident in the application moved by the appellant under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Thus, patent illegality has been committed by the Trial Court/Special Court.

¶10

On being controverted, it is not disputed by learned counsel for the appellant that even after rejection of the application moved by the appellant under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the filing of complaint is not barred.

¶11

Learned A.G.A., however, has supported the impugned order

¶12

passed by the Special Court.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is transpired that the appellant who had preferred an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C before the Special Court for investigation of the allegations of the application by registering an F.I.R. and its investigation appears to be aggrieved by the fact that the Special Court has rejected the request of appellant for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and so much so the application moved by the appellant under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. has not even been considered as a complaint under Section 2 (d) of the Cr.P.C. and, thus, according to learned counsel for the appellant, patent illegality has been committed by the trial Court.

¶14

During the course of deliberations, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the grievance of the appellant would be redressed if liberty is granted to the appellant to file appropriate complaint before the Special Court.

¶15

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, the instant appeal is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court that if any complaint case with regard to the incident mentioned in the application earlier moved by the appellant under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is moved within a reasonable time to say within four weeks from today, the Special Court shall deal the same in accordance with the procedure provided under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶16

Order Date :- 3.9.2024 Vivek Kr.

¶17

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nem Singh v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Nem Singh v. State of U.P. and 6 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

Ajay Kumar Pandey and 2 Others vs State of Up Others

Mumtaz and 2 Others vs State of Up

Vedpal vs State of U.P. and Another

Latoori @ Ranjeet and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Akash Rajput vs State of Up

Sohanlal Savita vs State of U.P. and Another