Criminal Case No. 790 of 2024 · High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:57155 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 3462 of 2025 Applicant :- Abdul Qayum And 11 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Singh,Prabhakar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sandeep Kumar Chaturvedi Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Sri Prabhakar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record. 2. The applicants have moved the instant application challenging proceedings of Special Criminal Case No. 790 of 2024, State v. Abdul Qayum and others, charge-sheet dated 31.08.2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 108 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS and Sections 3(1)द, 3(1)ध, 3(2)5A of SC/ST Act, Police Station Jogiya Udaipur, District Siddharth Nagar as well as cognizance order dated 17.10.2024 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Siddharth Nagar.
Facts
3. Brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged on 02.08.2024 at about 15:28 hours, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 324(4), 324(5), 310(2) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(va), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against 26 named and some unknown persons, with the allegation that O.P. No. 2 belongs to scheduled caste category (Dhobi). On 27.07.2024 at about 09:30 p.m. when her husband, namely, Mangroo was having dinner sitting on the cot lying in front of his home, Gram Pradhan Kayum came on his four wheeler and used abusive language objecting him for placing the cot there. Mangroo objected to his abusive language and told that he will move aside his cot, whereupon Gram Pradhan Kayum flared up and started hurling filthy language saying 'Dhobi' and threatened for dire consequences. Hearing about the incident, family members of O.P. No. 2 and other persons from vicinity gathered there. The O.P. No. 2 stated that there is very little space outside their home and somehow they manage their daily affairs. On the aforesaid, accused Gram Pradhan Kayum called his brothers and other persons named in the first information report, the used abusive language assaulted informant's husband with lathi, danda and threatened for life. They used caste indicative words as Dhobi. Gram Pradhan instigated the persons to set her house at blaze after committing loot. The O.P. No. 2 was also pushed by accused persons. In the incident informant's clothes were torn. The O.P. No. 2 as well as her husband ran away and went inside the house. The alleged accused persons tried to break the door. They pulled down the boundary wall and took away informant's goat and some utensils. Hearing the noise, score of villagers gathered there, someone dialled 112 and called the police. A written information was given to the police on 28.07.2024 and the FIR was lodged. After investigation charge sheet has been submitted against the applicants who are 12 in number and they have been summoned by the court concerned.
Legal Reasoning
this Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Agarwal v. State of U.P. and another, 2024:AHC:152701, decided on 18.09.2024, and in the case of Vaibhav Jain v. State of U.P. and another, Application U/s 482 No. 35886 of 2024, 2024:AHC:199278, decided on 19.12.2024. 7. This Court finds that the submissions made by the applicants' learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. 8. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicant arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing. 9. The prayer for quashing the proceedings of Special Criminal Case No. 790 of 2024 and the orders impugned, is refused, as I do not see any abuse of the court's process at this pre-trial stage. 10. However, it is provided that in case the applicants file surrender application before the court concerned, the court concerned shall obtain instructions from the Public Prosecutor and fix a date for appearance/surrender of the applicants and for hearing the applicants on surrender application. Thereafter, the said application shall be decided, after hearing the victim, by the court below, in accordance with law. 11. For the period of three weeks from today or till the surrender application is decided, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.
Arguments
4. Learned counsel for the State as well as learned A.G.A., on the other hand, submit that the incident is of the same day i.e. 27.07.2024 and injuries were sustained by both sides. He further submits that in view of the settled position of law, the court cannot go into the details to conduct trial in the jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that for the said incident an NCR was lodged against Abdul Kayum and on the next day of the incident i.e. 28.07.2024 it has been converted into an FIR. Thus, as a counterblast the present case has been lodged. He has placed certain statements of independent witnesses in support of the version of FIR. The real story is that it is the opposite party no. 2 and her husband misbehaved with the Gram Pradhan and in the incident the injury has been sustained by the Gram Pradhan. 6. It is a settled proposition of law that all the grounds as taken in the discharge application can be examined at any/appropriate stage of trial and this Court while exercising inherent powers cannot conduct mini trial. Reliance has been placed on the judgements of
Decision
12. The present application stands disposed of accordingly. Order Date :- 17.4.2025 DS Digitally signed by :- DIGAMBER SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad