High Court

1. Heard Sri Mohan Lal Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, who are three in number, Sri Moti Lal, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Imdad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

2. The applicants herein has filed the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the charge sheet dated 23.3.2024, cognizance order and summoning order dated 10.5.2022 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act passed in Special Session Trial No.231 of 2022 (State vs. Anurag Mishra and others) arising out of Case Crime No.222 of 2021, under Sections 427, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2) Va of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Utraon, District Allahabad/Prayagraj pending in the Court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Allahabad/Prayagraj.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a first information report stood lodge against the applicants that who are three in number along with one Pankaj Mishra, under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act read with Sections 427, 506, 504, 323 IPC relatable to the commission of the offence on 10.7.2021 with an allegation that the opposite party no.2 was allotted a land under some Government Scheme and he happens to be in possession thereof however, further there happens to be a land dispute regarding the same land between the opposite party no.2.

4. Allegation is that taking side of Ajay Patel the applicants herein along with Pankaj Mishra on 10.7.2021 hurled caste basis abuses at six in the evening and administered threat for dire consequences resisting the construction work and to vacate the said land claiming the land to be belonging to Ajay Patel. It is also alleged that with the help of the fist and kicks the opposite party no.2 was extended injuries and the mobile was also broke.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that earlier the police investigated the matter and found the applicants innocent, however, the S.P. Gangapar directed for re- investigation pursuant whereto a charge sheet has been submitted against the applicants and now summons have been issued. Submission is that first of all with respect to Pankaj Mishra his name stood expunged from the charge sheet on the ground that as per the C.D.R. details his mobile location was found in Mahiar District Satna(M.P.), however the applicants have been falsely implicated as the role assigned to the applicants and Pankaj Mishra was same. He next submits that as per the statement of the opposite party no.2 he had called the police while dialing 112 number but it has come on record that the opposite party no.2 did not dial the number 112. He also contended that there happens to be a dispute of Gram Pradhan of the village concerned as in the year 2021 the son of the applicant no.3, real brother of the applicant no.2 and the cousin brother of the applicant no.1 namely Pankaj Mishra and the father of the opposite party no.2, Hinch Lal and the mother of the opposite party no.2, Vimla Devi had contested the election of the Gram Panchayat Badgaon, Police Station Utraon, District Prayagraj, however, Pankaj Mishra had one that became a motivating factor for lodging the criminal proceedings. He further submits that the applicants have falsely implicated in the present case.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 while countering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that there happens to be the statements of other eye- witness being Shiv Kumar, page 58, Abhay Raj page 59, Uday Bhan page 60 and Shyamsurat page 61 and Arun Kumar page 62 who have testified and deposed that the incident took place. He further submits that though the applicants in the application in paragraph 30 has stated that this is a no injury case, however, he has brought before this Court the document which shows that the injuries have been sustained by the opposite party no.2 and he was also sent for radio-logical examination. He further submits that caste based abuses were also hurled in publicly.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also filed a copy of the first information report dated 5.6.2021, under Sections 147, 504, 506, 507, 448 & 427 of the IPC lodged against the applicants no. 2 and 3 by Navanda Prasad Mishra also post lodging of the FIR on 20.9.2024 being FIR No.0206, under Section 115(2), 352, 351(2), 3(2) (va) of the SC/ST Act. Submission is that an incident took place merely because Pankaj Mishra was exonerated the same cannot be a ground to hold that the applicant is not guilty of the said offence.

8. Learned AGA has adopted the submission of the counsel for the opposite party no.2.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

10. The basic question which falls for consideration in the present proceedings is the extent of judicial intervention at this stage. Apparently, there happens to be a first information report lodged against the applicants and Pankaj Mishra relatable to the commission of the offence on 10.7.2021 at six evening for administering beating and hurling caste base abuse. The statement of the opposite party no.2 which is at page 6 of the supplementary affidavit shows that the incident took place over a piece of land where the construction activity was going on with relation to hurling of abuse and beating. Thus, offences are made out. The position might have different in case the hurling of the abuses were within the four walls, however, once construction activity was going on then the same cannot be said to be a well constructed house particularly when the construction activity is going on over the land. Now another question arises with regard to the exoneration of Pankaj Mishra on the basis of C.D.R. details had shown the location at Mahiar, Satna (Madhya Pradesh. No doubt the applicants have been said to be committed the offence along with Pankaj Mishra but what is understandable is the fact that it is the case wherein there happens to be independent witnesses also who have supported the case of the opposite party no.2 and the narration of the facts in the first information report being one Shiv Kumar, Abhay Raj, Udai Bhan, Shyamsurat and Arun Kumar Patel, etc.

11. To put it otherwise there could have been a material deviation in case it was not a case of no injury, however, the Court finds that there happens to be injury also sustained by the opposite party no.2. Apart from this the question of dialing on number 112 is a factual which needs to be thrashed out in the trial and so far as the theory sought to be propounded by the applicants that there happens to be an election rivalry of a Gram Pradhan as noticed above, it is a matter of defence which cannot be gone into in the facts of the case.

12. Cumulatively, analyzing the case of the four corners of law, this Court of the opinion that it would not be appropriate to interfere at this stage to scuttle the proceedings particularly when offences do are made out and there might be certain defence which according to the applicants are valid and tenable the same can be taken when the trial commences and the factual aspects cannot be gone at this stage in the present proceedings.

13. In view of above, the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. stands rejected.

14. FIR and Medical Report filed today are taken on record and marked as Appendix A and B. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 piyush

1. Heard Sri Mohan Lal Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, who are three in number, Sri Moti Lal, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Imdad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

2. The applicants herein has filed the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the charge sheet dated 23.3.2024, cognizance order and summoning order dated 10.5.2022 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act passed in Special Session Trial No.231 of 2022 (State vs. Anurag Mishra and others) arising out of Case Crime No.222 of 2021, under Sections 427, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2) Va of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Utraon, District Allahabad/Prayagraj pending in the Court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Allahabad/Prayagraj.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a first information report stood lodge against the applicants that who are three in number along with one Pankaj Mishra, under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act read with Sections 427, 506, 504, 323 IPC relatable to the commission of the offence on 10.7.2021 with an allegation that the opposite party no.2 was allotted a land under some Government Scheme and he happens to be in possession thereof however, further there happens to be a land dispute regarding the same land between the opposite party no.2.

4. Allegation is that taking side of Ajay Patel the applicants herein along with Pankaj Mishra on 10.7.2021 hurled caste basis abuses at six in the evening and administered threat for dire consequences resisting the construction work and to vacate the said land claiming the land to be belonging to Ajay Patel. It is also alleged that with the help of the fist and kicks the opposite party no.2 was extended injuries and the mobile was also broke.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that earlier the police investigated the matter and found the applicants innocent, however, the S.P. Gangapar directed for re- investigation pursuant whereto a charge sheet has been submitted against the applicants and now summons have been issued. Submission is that first of all with respect to Pankaj Mishra his name stood expunged from the charge sheet on the ground that as per the C.D.R. details his mobile location was found in Mahiar District Satna(M.P.), however the applicants have been falsely implicated as the role assigned to the applicants and Pankaj Mishra was same. He next submits that as per the statement of the opposite party no.2 he had called the police while dialing 112 number but it has come on record that the opposite party no.2 did not dial the number 112. He also contended that there happens to be a dispute of Gram Pradhan of the village concerned as in the year 2021 the son of the applicant no.3, real brother of the applicant no.2 and the cousin brother of the applicant no.1 namely Pankaj Mishra and the father of the opposite party no.2, Hinch Lal and the mother of the opposite party no.2, Vimla Devi had contested the election of the Gram Panchayat Badgaon, Police Station Utraon, District Prayagraj, however, Pankaj Mishra had one that became a motivating factor for lodging the criminal proceedings. He further submits that the applicants have falsely implicated in the present case.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 while countering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that there happens to be the statements of other eye- witness being Shiv Kumar, page 58, Abhay Raj page 59, Uday Bhan page 60 and Shyamsurat page 61 and Arun Kumar page 62 who have testified and deposed that the incident took place. He further submits that though the applicants in the application in paragraph 30 has stated that this is a no injury case, however, he has brought before this Court the document which shows that the injuries have been sustained by the opposite party no.2 and he was also sent for radio-logical examination. He further submits that caste based abuses were also hurled in publicly.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also filed a copy of the first information report dated 5.6.2021, under Sections 147, 504, 506, 507, 448 & 427 of the IPC lodged against the applicants no. 2 and 3 by Navanda Prasad Mishra also post lodging of the FIR on 20.9.2024 being FIR No.0206, under Section 115(2), 352, 351(2), 3(2) (va) of the SC/ST Act. Submission is that an incident took place merely because Pankaj Mishra was exonerated the same cannot be a ground to hold that the applicant is not guilty of the said offence.

8. Learned AGA has adopted the submission of the counsel for the opposite party no.2.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

10. The basic question which falls for consideration in the present proceedings is the extent of judicial intervention at this stage. Apparently, there happens to be a first information report lodged against the applicants and Pankaj Mishra relatable to the commission of the offence on 10.7.2021 at six evening for administering beating and hurling caste base abuse. The statement of the opposite party no.2 which is at page 6 of the supplementary affidavit shows that the incident took place over a piece of land where the construction activity was going on with relation to hurling of abuse and beating. Thus, offences are made out. The position might have different in case the hurling of the abuses were within the four walls, however, once construction activity was going on then the same cannot be said to be a well constructed house particularly when the construction activity is going on over the land. Now another question arises with regard to the exoneration of Pankaj Mishra on the basis of C.D.R. details had shown the location at Mahiar, Satna (Madhya Pradesh. No doubt the applicants have been said to be committed the offence along with Pankaj Mishra but what is understandable is the fact that it is the case wherein there happens to be independent witnesses also who have supported the case of the opposite party no.2 and the narration of the facts in the first information report being one Shiv Kumar, Abhay Raj, Udai Bhan, Shyamsurat and Arun Kumar Patel, etc.

11. To put it otherwise there could have been a material deviation in case it was not a case of no injury, however, the Court finds that there happens to be injury also sustained by the opposite party no.2. Apart from this the question of dialing on number 112 is a factual which needs to be thrashed out in the trial and so far as the theory sought to be propounded by the applicants that there happens to be an election rivalry of a Gram Pradhan as noticed above, it is a matter of defence which cannot be gone into in the facts of the case.

12. Cumulatively, analyzing the case of the four corners of law, this Court of the opinion that it would not be appropriate to interfere at this stage to scuttle the proceedings particularly when offences do are made out and there might be certain defence which according to the applicants are valid and tenable the same can be taken when the trial commences and the factual aspects cannot be gone at this stage in the present proceedings.

13. In view of above, the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. stands rejected.

14. FIR and Medical Report filed today are taken on record and marked as Appendix A and B. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 piyush