Amit Kumar @ Amit @ Kaali and 8 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Jan 2025A482/432/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought quashing of a complaint case proceedings and cognizance order under IPC and SC/ST Act provisions. The AGA argued only a statutory appeal under Section 14-A SC/ST Act was available. The court found the matter required consideration, issued notice to respondent No.2, and stayed the cognizance order qua the applicants pending listing.

What did the court decide?

Interim stay on the impugned cognizance order dated 02.03.2024 qua the present petitioner until next date of listing.

Amit Kumar @ Amit @ Kaali and 8 Others vs State of U.P… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 432 of 2025

¶3

Applicant :- Amit Kumar @ Amit @ Kaali And 8 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pranjal Krishna,Aman Prakash,Shahla Zubair Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Pranjal Krishna, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.96/2024, under Sections 323, 504, 506 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act including the cognizance order dated 02.03.2024.

¶7

At the outset, Learned A.G.A. submits that against the impugned order statutory appeal under the SC/ST Act is maintainable.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. submits that against the impugned summoning order only remedy available with the applicant is statutory appeal under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act. He submits that the application under 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is animosity between the applicant as well as the respondent No.2 due to local municipal elections as both the parties are supporting rival candidates, specific pleading in this regard has been taken in paragraph 8 of the petition so also in other paragraphs of the petition.

¶10

It is next submitted that none of the ingredients which attract Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act are prima facie made out in view of the inquiry conducted by the police under Section 202 Cr.P.C. so also perusal of the complaint as well as the statements of the witnesses under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. He submits that incident has not occurred within the public view. In support of his contention, he has relied on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand and another reported in [(2020) 10 SCC 710], emphasis is on paragraphs Nos.14, 18, 19, 20.

¶11

He also submits that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 11.11.2024 passed in Application U/S 482 No.10077/2024 (Aman Wallia vs. State of U.P. and another) has stayed the impugned summoning order dated 02.03.2024 qua the co-accused Aman Wallia.

¶12

Perused the record.

¶13

A perusal of the statement of the complainant under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C., the statement of the witnesses under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C., police report and the judgment of Hitesh Verma (supra) and the order dated 11.11.2024 (supra), this Court is prima facie of the opinion that the matter requires consideration.

¶14

Issue notice to respondent No.2.

¶15

List this case along with Application U/S 482 No.10077/2024 on 04.03.2024.

¶16

Till the next date of listing, the impugned cognizance order dated 02.03.2024 passed in Complaint Case No.96/2024 shall remain stayed qua the present petitioner.

¶17

Order Date :- 20.1.2025 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Amit Kumar @ Amit @ Kaali and 8 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar @ Amit @ Kaali and 8 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sachin Shukla Thru. His Friend Rahul Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Law Secy. Civil Sectt. Lko and Anr.

Shiv Charan Singh and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Siraj Ahmad and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Vipin Kumar @ Vipin vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Shyam Lal and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others