Akaram Farruki @ Chunmun vs State Of U.P. And Another
2016 Latest Caselaw 4682 ALL

Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 4682 ALL
Judgement Date : 1 August, 2016

Allahabad High Court

Akaram Farruki @ Chunmun vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 August, 2016

Bench: Pramod Kumar Srivastava




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?AFR
 
Court No. - 48 
 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22502 of 2016
 
Applicant :- Akaram Farruki @ Chunmun
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Pravendra Kumar Chauhan
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the records.

In complaint case no. 172 of 2014 (Sudhir Vs. Sabir Ali and others), prosecution case in brief was that applicant and five other persons had trespassed the house of complainant Sudhir Kumar (present OP No.-2) and used force to get signature of complainant and his brother on certain blank documents. On the basis of statement under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., summoning order dated 10.1.2014 was passed against applicant and other co-accused persons.

From perusal of complaint and statement of complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C., it appears that, if prosecution case is taken to be true in its entirety, in that case also the alleged overt acts were committed by applicant and other co-accused because of property dispute and not because of the fact that complainant is a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe community.

Apart from it, offence under section 3(1) (x) SC/ST Act is made out only when it is committed "in any place within public view", but in present matter, according to complaint and statement of witnesses, the alleged incident had occurred within the house of complainant-OP No.-2 and not in any place within public view.

In these circumstances, the order of cognizance for offence under section 3(1) (x) SC/ST Act is found illegal and erroneous. In such matter, issuing notice will delay the proceedings of trial before lower court. Therefore, exercising power under section 482 Cr.P.C., this application is decided at this stage.

In view of the above, this application is partly allowed. The order of prosecution for offence under section 3(1) (x) SC/ST Act is quashed, but the prosecution of applicant in complaint case no. 172/2014 (Sudhir Vs. Sabir Ali and others) will be carried out for other offence.

Order Date :- 1.8.2016