Rakesh Master @ Naim Khan @ Rakesh Khan and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Sept 2025A482/7139/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought quashing of proceedings under the SC/ST Act alleging malafide implication and non-disclosure of offence ingredients, relying on Supreme Court authority on scrutinising frivolous FIRs. Court issued notice and stayed operation of the summoning order and chargesheet till next listing.

What did the court decide?

Effect and operation of impugned summoning order dated 04.12.2024 and chargesheet dated 06.08.2024 stayed till next date of listing; notice issued to opposite party no. 2.

Rakesh Master @ Naim Khan @ Rakesh Khan and 4 Others vs… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7139 of 2025

¶3

Rakesh Master @ Naim Khan @ Rakesh Khan And 4 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : J.B. Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 15

¶8

HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

¶9

Sri Rahul Singh Rana, learned counsel holding holding brief of Sri J.B. Singh learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been malafidely implicated in a false case under the stringent provisions of SC/ST Act only to cause prolong incarceration. The ingredients of offence under the SC/ST Act are not disclosed inasmuch as the incident did not happen at a place within public view. The FIR is actuated by malafides. Learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Salib @ Shalu @ Salim Vs State of U.P. and others reported at 2023 SCC Online SC 947 wherein after taking note of the tendency to launch false prosecution in our judicial system it was held:

¶10

"26. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all

¶11

A482 No. 7139 of 2025

¶12

¶13

the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged."

¶14

Matter needs consideration.

¶15

In case the prosecution is allowed to proceed at this stage the applicant will be subjected to trial without authority of law.

¶16

Issue notice to opposite party no. 2 by RPAD as well as by regular process returnable within four weeks. Steps be taken within two weeks. All the respondents to file counter affidavit by the next date of listing.

¶17

List thereafter.

¶18

Till the next date of listing the effect and operation of the impugned summoning order dated 04.12.2024 arising out of Session Case No. 2899 of 2024 pending in the court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Lucknow as well as impugned chargesheet dated 06.08.2024, shall remain stayed.

¶19

(Ajay Bhanot,J.)

¶20

September 3, 2025 Pravin

¶21

Digitally signed by :- PRAVIN VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rakesh Master @ Naim Khan @ Rakesh Khan and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Master @ Naim Khan @ Rakesh Khan and 4 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gayadeen Verma and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Umesh Kumar Maurya and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Javed @ Mohd Javed and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Committee of Management Thru. Manager Ram Sharam and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Secondary Education Lko. and 4 Others

Rajendra Kumar Alias Rajendra Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Karamvir Singh vs Registrar Co-Operative Societies U.P. Lko. and 3 Others