Dismissed

Gajendra Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2024CRLA/7165/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal challenged the trial court's rejection of an application to enhance charges under the SC/ST Act. The High Court held that the trial court's order was not illegal as amendments could still be made before final judgment.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of SC/ST Act was dismissed for lack of merit.

Gajendra Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:159064

¶2

Court No. - 83

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7165 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Gajendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ashish Goyal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ram Prakash Dwivedi

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ashish Goyal, learned counsel for appellant/informant and Sri Ram Prakash Dwivedi, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3 as well as learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶7

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of SC/ST Act has been preferred challenging the order dated 05.04.2024 passed by learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Agra in Special Session Case No.115 of 2021 (State Vs. Anil and others), arising out of Case Crime No.461 of 2020, under Section 420, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(v)A of SC/ST Act, Police Station Jagdishpura, District Agra.

¶8

As per narration of FIR, on 03.12.2016, appellant purchased jewellery of Rs. 2,04,645/- from the shop of respondent nos.2 and 3. The amount received by respondent nos.2 and 3 was regarding 24 carat gold (ornaments) but when appellant came to sale back jewellery, respondent nos.2 and 3 claimed the jewellery to be of 16 to 18 carat and asked for the bill. Again on 10.08.2020 at about 2:25 p.m. when appellant and his brother Devendra Singh met respondent nos.2 and 3 at their shop and showed the bill and asked for the return the cost of 24 carat of gold (ornaments), they got angry and started hurling wild abuses, gave threat of life, used caste based words.

¶9

In pursuance of the said incident, appellant lodged FIR against respondent nos.2 and 3 whereupon after culmination of inquiry, chargesheet was submitted by the concerned Investigating Officer under Section 420, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(v)A of SC/ST Act, whereupon cognizance was taken by the concerned court vide order dated 28.07.2021. Being aggrieved with the order of taking cognizance dated 28.07.2021, respondent nos.2 and 3 preferred discharge application before the concerned court which was rejected vide order dated 04.08.2022. The said order was

¶10

challenged by respondent no. 3 before this Court by way of filing Criminal Appeal No.6506 of 2022 which was allowed in part by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.10.2023 directing the court concerned not to proceed with Section 3(2)(v)A of SC/ST Act against appellant therein. In pursuance of the order 12.10.2023 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court, learned court concerned deleted the Section 3(2)(v)A of SC/ST Act from the order of framing charges dated 15.02.2023 vide order dated 05.12.2023. Thereafter, appellant preferred an application before the court concerned for enhancement of other sections of SC/ST Act i.e Sections 3(1)r and 3(1)s of SC/ST Act and the same was rejected vide order dated 05.04.2024 which impugned the present appeal.

¶11

Learned counsel for appellant/informant submitted that the incident was occurred outside of the shop which comes under the purview of public view and as such, Sections 3(1)r and 3(1)s of SC/ST Act are made out since respondent nos.2 and 3 used caste related words against appellant which has also been corroborated with the statement of appellant/informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but without considering the said facts and also without applying its judicial mind, learned trial court rejected the application preferred for enhancement of other sections of SC/ST Act by appellant, therefore the same may be quashed.

¶12

Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3 as well as learned AGA for the State vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the appeal and submitted that charges have been framed only on the basis of submission of chargesheet and after interference of this Court, the same has been restricted not to consider Section 3(2)(v)A of SC/ST Act and as such, there is no illegality in the order impugned.

¶13

After having the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties and perusal of the order impugned, it is crystal clear that while rejecting the application preferred at the behest of appellant, learned court concerned recorded the reasoning that the matter is related only to the extent of non receiving of payment in pursuance of gold which was purchased by appellant through respondent nos.2 and 3 and as such, no offence under other section of SC/ST is made out. It is also apparent from the record that aftter submission of chargesheet, the same has been considered by learned court concerned by way of framing charges under Section 420, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(v)A of SC/ST Act and after interference made by this Court, the same has been continued without reading Section 3(2)(v)A of SC/ST Act.

¶14

Rejection of application preferred by appellant/informant, does not mean that the charges cannot be amended but at this stage, the same has been denied by learned court concerned whereas it is presumed that the same can be extended before passing final judgment as provided under Section 216 Cr.P.C. and that stage may occurred after submission of testimonies recorded by the prosecution witnesses and as such, the Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order impugned.

¶15

In view thereof, the appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.

¶16

Order Date :- 26.9.2024 Vivek Kr.

¶17

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

Gajendra Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajendra Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ashish Verma vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Saran and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajbahadur and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh Kumar Patel and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Amit Jaiswal and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another