Lokendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Another
Case brief
What is this about?
Revision against cognizance under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) SC/ST Act and Sections 131, 352, 351(2) BNS. Court found prima facie no averment that the accused was not a Scheduled Caste/Tribe member, relied on Gorige Pentaiah, issued notice to Opposite Party No. 2 and stayed proceedings against the revisionist till next listing.
What did the court decide?
Interim stay of Criminal Case No. 167 of 2024 proceedings in respect of the revisionist till next date of listing; notice issued to Opposite Party No. 2.
What the court decided
Court No. - 81
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 415 of 2025
Revisionist :- Lokendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Prakash Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
- Heard Sri Ajay Sengar Advocate holding brief of Sri Prakash Chandra Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.
- The instant revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 25.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (P.O.C.S.O. Act), Jalaun at Orai in Criminal Case No. 167 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs. Abhishek Singh & Anr.) whereby, the learned court had taken cognizance over the Charge Sheet filed against the revisionist under Sections 131, 352, 351(2) B.N.S. and 3(1) (r) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
- Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that the informant, at no point of time, has stated that the revisionist does not belong to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes.
- Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has invited attention of this Court towards the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh, 2009 Crl. L.J. 350 (Supreme Court) and has submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in categorical terms, had held that the basic ingredient to constitute an offence punishable under Section 3 (1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is that the victim must state that the accused does not belong to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the offence under Section 3(1) SC/ST Act is made out when neither informant nor victim stated that the accused is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or Tribe.
Whether cognizance could be taken on a charge sheet where the BNS offences alleged are non-cognizable.
Parties & counsel
- other
Abhishek Singh
Coram
Manjive Shukla
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · January
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRLR/415/2025
All orders in this case
5 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court