High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:160736 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2425 of 2023 Appellant :- Arvind Singhal And 4 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Manish Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sudhir Kumar Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and perused the record. This is an appeal under Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 16.07.2022 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST), Meerut in Case Crime No.0433 of 2019, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 379 I.P.C. and Section 3(2) (द) of SC/ST Act, P.S.- Brahmpuri, District Meerut.
Legal Reasoning
By impugned order, the appellants alongwith co-accused Vandana Mittal, who is reported to be dead, have been summoned by the trial court to face trial under Sections 452, 323, 504, 379 I.P.C. and Section 3(2) (द) of SC/ST Act. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that appellant no.1 Arvind Singhal is a tenant of respondent no.2 in a shop constructed in her house. Appellant no.2 Rajkiran is having a flour mill in front of the house of the respondent no.2. Appellant No.3 Rishi is the son of appellant no.1. Appellant no.5 Anil Mittal is the brother-in-law of appellant no.1 and appellant no.4 Anmol is the son of appellant no.5. It is an admitted fact that a suit being Civil Suit No.457 of 2018 with respect of this shop in possession of appellant no.1 Arvind Singhal is pending between the parties.
Legal Reasoning
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that Shikha Singhal, the wife of appellant no.1 had lodged an FIR against the Poonam, the respondent no.2, her son Mohit and husband Madan Gopal on 30.06.2019 with the allegation that when she and her husband had gone to Mathura, respondent no.2 Poonam, her husband Madan Gopal and son Mohit along with 2-3 unknown persons uprooted the shutter of the shop in possession of the appellant no.1. They also demolished the wall and dug the platform as the first informant and her husband were out of station. The neighbours informed them on mobile. They immediately gave a ring to Chauki Incharge Ankit Chauhan and reached at the spot in the morning of 30.06.2019. It was also the allegation as per FIR that the respondent no.2 and his family members used to abuse and give death threats to the appellant and his family members. Miscreant persons used to come to their house. It is claimed that after this FIR dated 30.06.2019 with a concocted story showing the incident of date 29.06.2019 on 06.07.2019 the present FIR was lodged by the respondent no.2 against all the five appellants alongwith Vandana, who died during pendency of these proceedings. As per the present FIR, there is allegation that all the appellants abused the respondent no.2/ first informant and forcefully entered into the house of the first informant, used caste based words and thrashed the first informant. Appellant Rajkiran is said to have twisted the hand of the first informant and assaulted her with brick and also gave a threat of life. Her husband and son came on the spot and somehow saved her. All the appellants went away giving death threats. The respondent no.2 and her husband were taken to the police station and when they came back from the police station after three hours, the bricks kept in front of their house were found missing. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that no such incident took place. There is nothing on record to show that any of the appellant committed any wrong with the respondent no.2. The present FIR is just a counterblast of the FIR lodged by Shikha Singhal, the wife of appellant no.1. No medical has been filed by the respondent no.2. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submitted that the incident mentioned in the FIR in fact took place, regarding the incident the statements of witnesses are on record and on the basis of those statements only, the appellants have been summoned to face trial under abovementioned sections. From the perusal of the record, it is an admitted fact that the wife of the appellant no.1 had lodged an FIR on 30.06.2019 against the respondent no.2, her husband and son with the allegations as mentioned above and after that FIR, on 06.07.2019 the present FIR is said to have been lodged by the respondent no.2. There is an allegation that as Shikha Singhal the wife of the appellant no.1 Arvind Singhal is Sabhasad, so the FIR of the respondent no.2 was not written in time. If we go through the FIR, in the FIR the allegation is that the incident took place inside the house where appellants were said to have entered forcefully and allegedly used caste based words and thrashed the first informant. In the statement of the first informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C., appended at page-10 of the paper book, it has been mentioned that the incident took place inside the house, where the first informant was thrashed and was hurled caste based abuses. It is not the case of the first informant that when the appellants entered into the house of the first informant and hurled caste based words any person of the public was present there and when the incident of hurling abuses and caste based words is said to have taken place inside the house, which is not within public view, then in the opinion of the Court, no offence under Section 3(1) (r) can be said to be made out against the appellants. In the impugned order the mentioned sections are 3(2) Da of SC/ ST Act, while in the SC/ST Act there is no section like 3(2) Da. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 that it is section 3(1) Da of SC/ST Act. In the opinion of the Court, at the one side there is no sub-section 3(2) Da in the SC/ST Act and on the other hand, if it is 3(1) Da of SC/ST Act, as per the version of the counsel for respondent no.2/ first informant, because this incident took place inside the house of the first informant, the offence under Section 3(1) Da cannot be said to be made out. So far as the Section 379 of IPC is concerned, it is the allegation in the FIR that when the first informant was taken to the police station her three thousand bricks kept outside her house were stolen. Thus, as per FIR, it is the allegation that the appellants committed theft of these three thousand bricks, while in the case diary there is evidence that the municipality workers had come to clean the drain. As the bricks of the first informant were kept there causing hindrance in the cleaning of the drains and the first informant was not ready to remove those bricks from there, the workers of the municipality kept those bricks in the back side of the house of the first informant. Thus, from the FIR itself, the allegation under Section 379 IPC cannot be said to be made out against the appellants. So far as summoning under rest Sections 452, 323 and 504 IPC is concerned, the first informant has supported the version of the FIR in her statement and as per the impugned order on the basis of the statements of witnesses Titu, Rahul, Manoj and Ramesh there was dispute between the parties on the spot and the trial court on the basis of those statements only summoned the appellants to face trial under the abovementioned sections. Learned A.G.A. could not place before the Court the statements of witnesses Titu and Ramesh, though he is reported to have complete case diary with him. Anyway there are statements of Ravindra Kumar, Sandeep Titauriya, Vipul Singh and Manoj under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein there is mention of some dispute between appellant Arvind Singhal, Rajkiran and the husband of the first informant. It has come in the statements that appellant Rajkiran was having brick in his hand and some marpeet is also said to have taken place on the spot between Rajkiran, Arvind Singhal, some relatives of Arvind Singhal and the first informant and her husband. Thus, on the basis of the statements of the witnesses on record a case under Section 452, 323 and 504 IPC can be said to be prima facie made out against the appellants. The trial court has misread and interpreted the statements and evidence on record with regard to Section 379 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (Da) of SC/ST Act.
Decision
The appeal is allowed with regard to summoning under Sections 379 IPC and 3 (1) (Da) of SC/ST Act and it is dismissed with regard to summoning of the appellants under Sections 452, 323 and 504 I.P.C. The appeal is allowed partly. Order Date :- 9.8.2023 Radhika Digitally signed by :- RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad