Appellants challenged chargesheet and cognizance order under SC/ST Act provisions for an FIR involving IPC Sections 147, 323, 504, 506. Court found the incident took place at a public place, so the provisions directly apply, and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:111611
Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4674 of 2024
Appellant :- Sarman And 3 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajkumari Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mohammad Danish,Mohammad Iliyas
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
because of the dispute of drainage persisting in between the houses of the opposite party no. 2 as well as the appellants.
Order Date :- 9.7.2024 #Vik/-
Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the incident occurred in a public place, so that Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) of the SC/ST Act attract against the appellants.
Whether the chargesheet, cognizance order and proceedings of Case Crime no. 181 of 2023 warranted interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Criminal Appeal No. 1208 of 2021 decided on 22.10.2021Distinguished
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sarman And 3 Others
State of U.P.
Another
Saurabh Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
