Allowed

Pankaj Dubey v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2024CRLA/4906/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the charges under the SC/ST Act against the appellant. The court held that the complaint lacked averments stating the accused was not a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe, which is essential for such offences.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed; charges under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act are quashed; appellant to be tried only for offences under IPC.

Pankaj Dubey vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:109912

¶2

Court No. - 83

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4906 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Pankaj Dubey Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ajay Sengar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vijay Singh Rathore

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ajay Sengar, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Vijay Singh Rathore, learned counsel for respondent no.2 as well as learned AGA.

¶7

Present appeal has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 26.04.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jalaun at Orai in Complaint Case No.0064 of 2021 (Ram Kumar Vs. Pankaj Dubey), under Sections 352, 504, 506 IPC and 3 (1) (r) (s) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun through which discharge application preferred by appellant was rejected.

¶8

The main contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that from a plain reading of the averments made in the complaint as well as statements, no offence can be said to be made out under Section 3 (1) (r) & 3 (1) (s) of the SC/ST Act. In support of his submission, learned counsel for appellant placed reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court rendered in the case of Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2009 (Crl.) LJ 350, wherein Hon'ble the Apex Court had categorically held that for attracting the rigours of Section 3 (1) X of the SC/ST Act (equivalent to Sections 3 (1) (r) and 3 (1) (s) of the SC/ST Act) and to try a person for the offence under the said sections, specific assertion has to be made that the accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes and the complainant was intentionally insulted and intimidated by the accused with an intent to humiliate in public place in public view and once in the complaint it is not mentioned that the accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes then criminal trial under the said section would be totally unjustified and improbable.

¶9

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and learned AGA opposed the prayer as made in the instant appeal but did not dispute the fact that there was no such averments made in the

¶10

complaint that the accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes.

¶11

From a perusal of the complaint as well as statements, it borne out that there is no averments on record to show that the accused was not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and had intentionally abused or intimidated the informant solely because of his caste.

¶12

In view of the facts that the said averments are missing and respectfully following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah (supra) , offence under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) SC/ST Act against the appellant is hereby quashed and he shall be tried only for the offences under Sections 352, 504 and 506 IPC in Complaint Case No.0064 of 2021 (Ram Kumar Vs. Pankaj Dubey), in accordance with law.

¶13

The instant appeal is disposed of accordingly.

¶14

Order Date :- 4.7.2024 Vivek Kr.

¶15

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

Pankaj Dubey v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Dubey v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Kumar Sahu vs State of U.P. and Another

Lovlesh Yadav @ Tubaki and 3 Others vs State of Up and Another

Saiyad Haidar Raza and 9 Others vs State of Up and Another

Golu Singh @ Akashay Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil vs State of U.P. and Another

Sohanlal Savita vs State of U.P. and Another