State of U.P. and Another v. Party

3. The case of the applicant is that a first information report stood lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicants being FIR No. 0079 of 2018 on 12.05.2018 at 12:52 hours under Sections 147, 323, 452, 354, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3(ii)(Va) of the SC/ST Act relatable to the commission of the offences on 12.10.2017 with an allegation that the opposite party no. 2 belongs to SC/ST category and with respect to the non distribution of food items by the Aganbari Karyakatri in a proper manner as per the rules a complaint stood lodged by the opposite party no. 2 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Belthara Road, Ballia on 03.10.2017 on which an inquiry was set up which was conducted on 13.10.2017 and being annoyed with the same, the applicants herein became infuriated and acted as a gang with pre-determined mind on 12.10.2017 in the late evening at about 7:30 hours they came to the house of the opposite party no. 2 and hurled abuses in Hindi vernacular on the gate of the house of the opposite party no. 2 and apprehending that the opposite party no. 2 would be assaulted, the opposite party no. 2 ran inside his house and the applicants herein also barged into the house and assaulted the wife of the opposite party no. 2 2 A482 No. 18824 of 2019 Guddi Devi and one another Marakshi wife of Babu Lal and they were disrobed and they were subjected to assaulted pursuant whereto they sustained injuries. Since constant efforts were made for lodging of the first information report they on 11.05.2018 a complaint was lodged to the CO and the impugned FIR came to be lodged on 12.05.2018. Post recording of the statements, a charge sheet came to be submitted against the applicants in Case Crime No. 79 of 2018 in Session Trial No. 114 of 2019 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3(1) (D) of SC/ST Act.

4. Questioning the same, the present application has been preferred.

5. This Court entertained the present application and proceeded to pass the following order on 09.05.2019.- "Sri Manoj Yadav, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2, which is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicant no. 1, Savita Srivastava is a Anganbari Karyakatri, applicant no. 2 is the son of applicant no. 1, applicant no. 4 is the brother-in-law (devar) of the applicant no. 1, applicant no. 5 is the married daughter of applicant no. 1 and applicant no. 6 is the villager. He next submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the opposite party no. 2, Gauri Shankar containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the applicants with the ulterior interior of harassing them. He also submitted that opposite party no. 2 misbehaved with the applicant no. 1 and other workers of the her government department. An application of misbehaviour, mentioning misbehaviour and maar-peet committed by the opposite party no. 2 was filed, which is annexed as Annexure-8 and the Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari has investigated the matter and submitted its report before S.D.M. Belthara Road, Ballia, which is also annexed on page 72. Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari, Ballia has specifically mentioned in its report that opposite party no. 2, Gauri Shankar, son of Ram Lal committed maar-peet with Anganbari Karyakatri Savita Srivastava along with 10-15 female and 10-12 male and this matter was reported to the concerned police station by Sushila Devi. Further submission is that opposite party no. 2 by way of a false F.I.R. has roped the entire family of Anganbari Karyakatri Savita Srivastava and the Police has submitted a false chargesheet in undue pressure of opposite party no. 2. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that chargesheet has been filed after collecting the evidence and no indulgence is required. After considering the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that earlier F.I.R. was lodged by applicant no. 1 against the opposite party no. 2 and as a counter blast to the said F.I.R. opposite party no. 2 has 3 A482 No. 18824 of 2019 filed roping the entire family of applicant no. 1 with the ulterior intention of harassing them. Matter requires consideration. Notice on behalf of the opposite party no. 1 has been accepted by learned AGA. He prays for and is allowed four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Issue notice to opposite party no. 2, who may also file counter affidavit within the same period. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter. List after expiry of the aforesaid period before the appropriate Court. Till the next date of listing, further proceeding of S.T. No. 114 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime no. 79 of 2018, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)D SC/ST Act, P.S. Ubhaon, district-Ballia, pending in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge Second Ballia shall remain stayed."

6. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that out of the six applicants so far as the applicant no. 3 Harish Chandra Srivastava son of Ravindra Lal Srivastava is concerned, he expired on 18.11.2022 and with respect to the applicant no. 6 Radhe Mohan Tiwari, he expired in the year

2023. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated as they are not committed any offence. Submission is that the hollowness and perversity is further writ large for the fact that the incident is stated to be dated 12/13.10.2017 however, the FIR stood lodged on 12.05.2018. Contention is that there is inordinate delay in lodging of the first information report which has not been explained which itself shows that a well developed story after deliberation has been cooked up just in order to falsely implicate the applicants. It is also contended that even as per the Annexure-C2 of the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no. 2, the injured was subjected to medical examination privately and they were brought by husband dated 13.10.2017 though according to the learned counsel for the applicants the date is 03.07.2018. It is also contended that even in fact a complaint stood lodged by the opposite party no. 2 before the Sub Divisional Officer Belthara Road regarding conduction of the inquiry with regard to the distribution of food items by the Aganbari Karyakatri pursuant whereto the Bal Vikas Pariyojana Adhikari on

13.10.2017 issued a corresponding letter and Mukhya Sevika by virtue of communication at page 64 itself came up with a stand that it was the opposite party no. 2 who were creating obstacles in the conduction of the inquiry as they had also assaulted pursuant whereto the applicants faction had sustained injuries. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the entire prosecution theory is hollow and baseless which has been 4 A482 No. 18824 of 2019 created with for vindication in that regard. Learned counsel for the applicants also submits that in the first information report there is nothing on record to even substantiate that there is a recital with regard to the aspect that the applicants were not the member of scheduled caste. Reliance has been placed upon the decision on Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of A.P. : (2008) LawSuit (SC) 2280. Further reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand : Criminal Appeal No. 707 of 2020 so as to further contend that the necessary recitals are lacking and nothing has been brought on record to show that the applicants accused knowing the opposite party no. 2/victim were belonging to SC/ST category then to abuses were hurled. It is also contended that the injuries which have been sought to be shown are fabricated and they are not trustworthy particularly when it is the own case of the opposite party no. 2 first informant that the injured were put to medical examination while being brought by any police officer. Further contention is that the provisions contained under Section 3(1)(D) also does not stand attracted for the simple reason that though it is alleged that the applicants herein and disrobed the victim but in the statement of the victim firstly the wife of the opposite party no. 2 there is no such recital and further in the statement of Marakshi there is no recital about the same, thus, once the victim is not coming up with the said stand then the hollowness of the charges are explicitly clear. Learned counsel for the applicants has also submitted that with respect to the incident dated 13.10.2017 a first information report stood lodged by the applicant no. 1 on 15.11.2017 under Sections 147, 354, 332, 323, 427, 504 IPC against the opposite party no. 2, thus, the submission is that the present proceedings is nothing but a counter blast and a retaliation just in order to dictate terms so that compromise be entered into between the parties.

7. Learned AGA as well as Sri Manoj Yadav, on the other hand, submits that a bare look of the first information report would make it more evident that offences have been made out particularly when there is a clear cut allegation that too pin pointed against the applicants who have been marked as an accused in the first information report. It is also contended that merely because there had been delay in lodging the first information report would not be of any help to the applicants particularly when the opposite party no. 2 was running pillar to post to get the first information report lodged and when nothing happened then ultimately after making correspondence at the Chief Minister Portal and also making several correspondences, the FIR 5 A482 No. 18824 of 2019 stood lodged. He further submits that the injury report itself shows that the incident occurred particularly when though the police was not registering the FIR so the opposite party no. 2 got themselves medically examined without aid and assistance of the police. He further submits that pin pointed allegations are referable to the assaulting, beating, hurling of abuses and disrobing the victim.

8. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.

9. Apparently, the first information report stood lodged on 12.05.2018 with relation to an incident dated 12/13.10.2017 under Section 147, 323, 452, 354, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/2 by way of the SC/ST Act. Though according to the learned counsel for the applicants, the first information report is not only belated but it is an outcome and brain child of deliberations and a concocted story and further counter blast with relation to the first information report lodged by the applicants faction on 15.11.2017 under Sections, 147, 353, 332, 323, 427, 504 IPC against the opposite party no. 2 faction. The counsel for the opposite party no. 2, on the other hand, submits that the delay in lodging of the first information report was attributable to lethargy and the apathy on the part of the police officials in not lodging the first information report, thus, there was a delay in lodging of the first information report and further the injury report do suggest that there happen to be an incident dated 12/13.10.2017. In the opinion of the Court at this stage this Court is not required to delve into the said factual issues, however, whatever contentions are being sought to be raised by the applicants are liable to be taken before the court below while filing a discharge application taking the ground that the impugned proceedings is nothing but a counter blast and a retaliation and no injuries have been sustained and further the offences under Section 3(1)(D) are not made out.

10. Accordingly, looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the application stands disposed of, the applicants are at liberty to file a discharge application before the court below by 17.10.2025 and on the filing of the discharge application, the court below shall decide the same preferably within three months.

11. Till the disposal of the discharge application, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in proceeding of S.T. No. 114 of 2019, arising 6 A482 No. 18824 of 2019 out of Case Crime no. 79 of 2018, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)D SC/ST Act, P.S. Ubhaon, district-Ballia, pending in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge Second Ballia.

12. The protection so accorded to the applicants shall be only in those contingencies wherein the applicants sticks to the timelines and does not violate any of the conditions of the order. In case of any violation, the protection stand vacated without reference to the Bench.

13. Needless to point out that this Court has not adjudicated the matter on the merits, however, it is open for the court below to pass an order strictly in accordance with law. October 6, 2025 Rajesh (Vikas Budhwar,J.) RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. The case of the applicant is that a first information report stood lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicants being FIR No. 0079 of 2018 on 12.05.2018 at 12:52 hours under Sections 147, 323, 452, 354, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3(ii)(Va) of the SC/ST Act relatable to the commission of the offences on 12.10.2017 with an allegation that the opposite party no. 2 belongs to SC/ST category and with respect to the non distribution of food items by the Aganbari Karyakatri in a proper manner as per the rules a complaint stood lodged by the opposite party no. 2 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Belthara Road, Ballia on 03.10.2017 on which an inquiry was set up which was conducted on 13.10.2017 and being annoyed with the same, the applicants herein became infuriated and acted as a gang with pre-determined mind on 12.10.2017 in the late evening at about 7:30 hours they came to the house of the opposite party no. 2 and hurled abuses in Hindi vernacular on the gate of the house of the opposite party no. 2 and apprehending that the opposite party no. 2 would be assaulted, the opposite party no. 2 ran inside his house and the applicants herein also barged into the house and assaulted the wife of the opposite party no. 2 2 A482 No. 18824 of 2019 Guddi Devi and one another Marakshi wife of Babu Lal and they were disrobed and they were subjected to assaulted pursuant whereto they sustained injuries. Since constant efforts were made for lodging of the first information report they on 11.05.2018 a complaint was lodged to the CO and the impugned FIR came to be lodged on 12.05.2018. Post recording of the statements, a charge sheet came to be submitted against the applicants in Case Crime No. 79 of 2018 in Session Trial No. 114 of 2019 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3(1) (D) of SC/ST Act.

4. Questioning the same, the present application has been preferred.

5. This Court entertained the present application and proceeded to pass the following order on 09.05.2019.- "Sri Manoj Yadav, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2, which is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicant no. 1, Savita Srivastava is a Anganbari Karyakatri, applicant no. 2 is the son of applicant no. 1, applicant no. 4 is the brother-in-law (devar) of the applicant no. 1, applicant no. 5 is the married daughter of applicant no. 1 and applicant no. 6 is the villager. He next submitted that the impugned first information report has been lodged by the opposite party no. 2, Gauri Shankar containing absolutely false and concocted allegations against the applicants with the ulterior interior of harassing them. He also submitted that opposite party no. 2 misbehaved with the applicant no. 1 and other workers of the her government department. An application of misbehaviour, mentioning misbehaviour and maar-peet committed by the opposite party no. 2 was filed, which is annexed as Annexure-8 and the Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari has investigated the matter and submitted its report before S.D.M. Belthara Road, Ballia, which is also annexed on page 72. Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari, Ballia has specifically mentioned in its report that opposite party no. 2, Gauri Shankar, son of Ram Lal committed maar-peet with Anganbari Karyakatri Savita Srivastava along with 10-15 female and 10-12 male and this matter was reported to the concerned police station by Sushila Devi. Further submission is that opposite party no. 2 by way of a false F.I.R. has roped the entire family of Anganbari Karyakatri Savita Srivastava and the Police has submitted a false chargesheet in undue pressure of opposite party no. 2. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that chargesheet has been filed after collecting the evidence and no indulgence is required. After considering the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that earlier F.I.R. was lodged by applicant no. 1 against the opposite party no. 2 and as a counter blast to the said F.I.R. opposite party no. 2 has 3 A482 No. 18824 of 2019 filed roping the entire family of applicant no. 1 with the ulterior intention of harassing them. Matter requires consideration. Notice on behalf of the opposite party no. 1 has been accepted by learned AGA. He prays for and is allowed four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Issue notice to opposite party no. 2, who may also file counter affidavit within the same period. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter. List after expiry of the aforesaid period before the appropriate Court. Till the next date of listing, further proceeding of S.T. No. 114 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime no. 79 of 2018, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)D SC/ST Act, P.S. Ubhaon, district-Ballia, pending in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge Second Ballia shall remain stayed."

6. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that out of the six applicants so far as the applicant no. 3 Harish Chandra Srivastava son of Ravindra Lal Srivastava is concerned, he expired on 18.11.2022 and with respect to the applicant no. 6 Radhe Mohan Tiwari, he expired in the year

2023. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated as they are not committed any offence. Submission is that the hollowness and perversity is further writ large for the fact that the incident is stated to be dated 12/13.10.2017 however, the FIR stood lodged on 12.05.2018. Contention is that there is inordinate delay in lodging of the first information report which has not been explained which itself shows that a well developed story after deliberation has been cooked up just in order to falsely implicate the applicants. It is also contended that even as per the Annexure-C2 of the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no. 2, the injured was subjected to medical examination privately and they were brought by husband dated 13.10.2017 though according to the learned counsel for the applicants the date is 03.07.2018. It is also contended that even in fact a complaint stood lodged by the opposite party no. 2 before the Sub Divisional Officer Belthara Road regarding conduction of the inquiry with regard to the distribution of food items by the Aganbari Karyakatri pursuant whereto the Bal Vikas Pariyojana Adhikari on

13.10.2017 issued a corresponding letter and Mukhya Sevika by virtue of communication at page 64 itself came up with a stand that it was the opposite party no. 2 who were creating obstacles in the conduction of the inquiry as they had also assaulted pursuant whereto the applicants faction had sustained injuries. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the entire prosecution theory is hollow and baseless which has been 4 A482 No. 18824 of 2019 created with for vindication in that regard. Learned counsel for the applicants also submits that in the first information report there is nothing on record to even substantiate that there is a recital with regard to the aspect that the applicants were not the member of scheduled caste. Reliance has been placed upon the decision on Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of A.P. : (2008) LawSuit (SC) 2280. Further reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand : Criminal Appeal No. 707 of 2020 so as to further contend that the necessary recitals are lacking and nothing has been brought on record to show that the applicants accused knowing the opposite party no. 2/victim were belonging to SC/ST category then to abuses were hurled. It is also contended that the injuries which have been sought to be shown are fabricated and they are not trustworthy particularly when it is the own case of the opposite party no. 2 first informant that the injured were put to medical examination while being brought by any police officer. Further contention is that the provisions contained under Section 3(1)(D) also does not stand attracted for the simple reason that though it is alleged that the applicants herein and disrobed the victim but in the statement of the victim firstly the wife of the opposite party no. 2 there is no such recital and further in the statement of Marakshi there is no recital about the same, thus, once the victim is not coming up with the said stand then the hollowness of the charges are explicitly clear. Learned counsel for the applicants has also submitted that with respect to the incident dated 13.10.2017 a first information report stood lodged by the applicant no. 1 on 15.11.2017 under Sections 147, 354, 332, 323, 427, 504 IPC against the opposite party no. 2, thus, the submission is that the present proceedings is nothing but a counter blast and a retaliation just in order to dictate terms so that compromise be entered into between the parties.

7. Learned AGA as well as Sri Manoj Yadav, on the other hand, submits that a bare look of the first information report would make it more evident that offences have been made out particularly when there is a clear cut allegation that too pin pointed against the applicants who have been marked as an accused in the first information report. It is also contended that merely because there had been delay in lodging the first information report would not be of any help to the applicants particularly when the opposite party no. 2 was running pillar to post to get the first information report lodged and when nothing happened then ultimately after making correspondence at the Chief Minister Portal and also making several correspondences, the FIR 5 A482 No. 18824 of 2019 stood lodged. He further submits that the injury report itself shows that the incident occurred particularly when though the police was not registering the FIR so the opposite party no. 2 got themselves medically examined without aid and assistance of the police. He further submits that pin pointed allegations are referable to the assaulting, beating, hurling of abuses and disrobing the victim.

8. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.

9. Apparently, the first information report stood lodged on 12.05.2018 with relation to an incident dated 12/13.10.2017 under Section 147, 323, 452, 354, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3/2 by way of the SC/ST Act. Though according to the learned counsel for the applicants, the first information report is not only belated but it is an outcome and brain child of deliberations and a concocted story and further counter blast with relation to the first information report lodged by the applicants faction on 15.11.2017 under Sections, 147, 353, 332, 323, 427, 504 IPC against the opposite party no. 2 faction. The counsel for the opposite party no. 2, on the other hand, submits that the delay in lodging of the first information report was attributable to lethargy and the apathy on the part of the police officials in not lodging the first information report, thus, there was a delay in lodging of the first information report and further the injury report do suggest that there happen to be an incident dated 12/13.10.2017. In the opinion of the Court at this stage this Court is not required to delve into the said factual issues, however, whatever contentions are being sought to be raised by the applicants are liable to be taken before the court below while filing a discharge application taking the ground that the impugned proceedings is nothing but a counter blast and a retaliation and no injuries have been sustained and further the offences under Section 3(1)(D) are not made out.

10. Accordingly, looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the application stands disposed of, the applicants are at liberty to file a discharge application before the court below by 17.10.2025 and on the filing of the discharge application, the court below shall decide the same preferably within three months.

11. Till the disposal of the discharge application, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in proceeding of S.T. No. 114 of 2019, arising 6 A482 No. 18824 of 2019 out of Case Crime no. 79 of 2018, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)D SC/ST Act, P.S. Ubhaon, district-Ballia, pending in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge Second Ballia.

12. The protection so accorded to the applicants shall be only in those contingencies wherein the applicants sticks to the timelines and does not violate any of the conditions of the order. In case of any violation, the protection stand vacated without reference to the Bench.

13. Needless to point out that this Court has not adjudicated the matter on the merits, however, it is open for the court below to pass an order strictly in accordance with law. October 6, 2025 Rajesh (Vikas Budhwar,J.) RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad