Partly allowed

Dinesh and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2024CRLA/608/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Special Judge on appeal examined arguments regarding the applicability of the S.C./ S.T. Act and the validity of summoning in a complaint case. The court observed that the matter requires consideration on facts and law. Consequently, proceedings against the appellants in the underlying complaint were stayed pending a full hearing scheduled for a future date when counter affidavits are filed.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against the appellants in Complaint No. 1354 of 2020 pending in the Court of learned Special Judge S.C./ S.T. Act, Hardoi, were stayed.

Dinesh and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 608 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- Dinesh And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Vineet Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent : - G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vineet Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sri Nikhil Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (1) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellants- Dinesh, Naresh, Vishwajeet, Baua, Radha Krishna and Pradeep against the order dated 08.12.2023 passed by the court of learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Hardoi arising out of Complaint No. 1354 of 2020, under Section 323 I.P.C., 3(1) (Dha) S.C./S.T. Act in 156 (3) Cr.P.C., Police Station Bilgram, District Hardoi

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the allegation as levelled in the application filed by the opposite party No.2 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is totally baseless. No such incident took place, as alleged by the opposite party No.2.

¶8

In support of his argument, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, (2020) 10 SCC 710 (para 13 and 18) as well as Ramesh Chandra Viashya Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in SCC Online SC 668 (para 17, 18 and 21) submitted that provisions of Section 3(1) (Dha) S.C./S.T. Act is not applicable in the case of present appellants and the villagers whose names have been mentioned in the complaint namely, Ravi and Omkaran, came after the incident took place and as per the allegation nothing has been happened in front of them, thus there is no public place or public view. It is also stated that the appellants have not beaten the opposite party No.2 and his son, the allegations are totally false and fabricated. He further submits that the Magistrate cannot summon the appellants in a complaint case, it is against the provisions of law. Thus, an interim relief has been prayed for.

¶9

The matter requires consideration on facts and law, both.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party

¶11

No. 1.

¶12

Let notice be issued to opposite party No. 2 by Registered Post A.D.

¶13

Steps be taken within a week from today.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. as well as the opposite party No. 2 may file counter affidavit within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks, thereafter.

¶15

Put up this case on 25.04.2024 before appropriate Bench.

¶16

Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of Complaint No. 1354 of 2020, under Section 323 I.P.C., 3(1) (Dha) S.C./S.T. Act in 156 (3) Cr.P.C., Police Station Bilgram, District Hardoi, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Hardo, so far as it relates to present appellants, shall remain stayed.

¶17

Order Date :- 27.2.2024

¶18

Arvind

¶19

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

Dinesh and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh and 5 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramashankar Gupta and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Suresh Bahadur Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Dist. Lko.

Sugreev Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Kallu @ Mohd. Rashid vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Zulfiqar Husain @ Sheru vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sugreev Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others