Abhishek Chauhan And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 6020 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Abhishek Chauhan And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 March, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35758
 
Court No. - 74
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 44449 of 2024 (Leading application)
 
Applicant :- Abhishek Chauhan And 2 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Nitin Kumar,Rajendra Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 
with 
 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 44489 of 2024 (Connected application)
 
Applicant :- X Juvenile
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Nitin Kumar,Rajendra Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar (A/D 0369/2012), advocate holding brief of Shri Nitin Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants who are three in number in the leading application and sole applicant in the connected application, Shri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, counsel for opposite party no.2 and Sri S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State in the leading application and in the conneced application.

2. Since facts are common thus they are being decided by a composite order.

3. The applications under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 2006 of 2023 (leading application) State Vs. Abhishek Chauhan and others, and Case No. 169 of 2024 (connection application), State v. Vivek Chauhan, arising out of case crime no. 0107 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 74, 333, 352, 351(3) of BNS (323, 324, 354, 452, 504, 506 IPC), Police Station- Shivala Kalan, District Bijnor, pending before the court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bijnor.

4. The counsel for the rival parties have made a joint statement that they do not propose to file any further affidavits thus with the consent of the parties, both the applications are being decided at the fresh stage.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that has sought to argue that a first information report stood lodged on 21.08.2024, being FIR No. 0107 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 74, 333, 352, 351(3) of BNS and Section 3(2) (Va) of the SC/ST Act by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicants who are four in number relatable to the commission of the offences on 20.08.2024 at about 6.30 in the morning when the first informant was doing some domestic work in her house then the applicants barged into the house of the opposite party no. 2 while hurling caste based abuses and with the aid of fist and kicks, they attacked the mother-in-law of the first informant, Vidyawati, father-in-law, Babu Singh and when the onlookers came to rescue then the accused- Anil exhibited a indecent conduct while making obscene gestures and on the arrival of the other persons of the village, the accused ran away after threatening to kill them. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that there happens to be a civil dispute pending between the parties. According to him, the father-in-law of the first informant, Babu Singh, Mangal Sing and Khoob Singh are the sons of Ganesh Singh who are real brothers. They in the ancestral property have 1/3rd share each.

6. Submission is that, Mangal Singh died issue less and so far as Khoob Singh is concerned, he had transferred his property in favour of one Savita who sold the same on 06.11.2023 to Sachin and to the applicant faction on 26.12.2023 being Arazi No. 959. Contention is that already with regard to interference being caused at the end of the first informant faction, a civil suit being O.S. No. 59 of 2024 stood instituted by the applicant no. 3, Anil Kumar v. Babu Singh and 9 others, in which on 09.04.2024, there an injunction order stood passed. According to him, there happens to be other suits also pending and the parties are litigating before the appropriate forums under common law. Learned counsel for the applicants has also invited the attention of the Court towards the fact that an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. stood preferred by the father-in-law of the opposite party no. 2, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 364 IPC being Babu Singh v. Mangal Singh, in which the opposite party no. 3 was also made a party and the said application on non-contest came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 07.09.2024. According to him, again an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. stood triggered by the daughter of the Babu Singh, in which summoning order has been issued.

7. Further submission is that the entire criminality has been sought to be slapped upon the applicants just in order to create a pressure upon the applicants to part away with the land in favour of the opposite party no. 2, pursuant to the execution of the sale deed dated 26.12.2023 being the 1/3rd share of Mangal Singh. In nutshell, the submission is that the matter is purely civil but it has been given a criminal tinge and the applicants are innocent in that regard. It has also been submitted that Babu Singh solemnized the marriage of his son, Narendra with opposite party no.2 and settled in Delhi and thus, the opposite party no. 2 belongs to Chauhan/ Thakur Caste thus SC/ST provision does not apply.

8. Shri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, counsel for the first informant in both the applications has submitted that from the narration of the allegations contained in the first information report, offences are made out and apart from the same, there happens to be injury extended to Narendra and Vidyawati. He further invited the attention of the Court towards at page 114 of the paper book being the statement of the doctor were examined the injured, according to which, Vidyawati had sustained five injuries through hard and blunt objects. According to him, once injuries have been sustained, though it may be termed to be simple in nature, then offences are made out and whatever contentions are sought to be raised that the applicants are innocent or they have been entangled in the present proceedings is concerned, the same is the defence which can only be taken at the time of the trial commences. He has further submitted that offences under SC/ST Act are made out, as the opposite party no. 2 belongs to SC/ST community.

9. Shri S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer has supported the arguments of Shri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, counsel for opposite party no. 2 and according to him, offence are made out.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.

11. The basic question which falls for consideration before this Court at this stage, in the present proceedings is the extent of judicial interference in the matters wherein charge-sheet is being sought to be questioned. Apparently, there happens to be a first information report lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicants relatable to the commission of the offences on 20.08.2024 at 6.30 for hurling of the abuses and administering beating. In order to support the story so sought to be narrated in the first information report Smt. Vidyawati, the injured, Shri Narendra Kumar who is also injured, have deposed in the statements under Section 180 of the BNS, incident stood occurred and they sustained injuries, even there happens to be a statement under Section 183 of BNS of the victim, according to which, the prosecution theory is being sought to be supported. The injury report also shows that Narendra and Vidyawati had sustained injuries and there is the statement at page 114 of the paper-book of the doctor deposing that injuries were sustained through hard and blunt objects. Thus, it cannot be said that no incident stood occurred. Now the next question which arises for consideration is whether caste based abuses were hurled or not. As per the allegations contained in the first information report, the first informant has stated that the applicants were hurling caste based abuses from outside while entering into the house, thus, it cannot be said that it was not within the public view. Though the learned counsel for the applicants has stated in para 30 of the application that Babu Singh solemnized the marriage of his son Narendra with opposite party no. 2 and after marriage they are settled in Delhi, hence there is no knowledge to any family member of the Pattidar of Babu Singh regarding the caste of the opposite party no. 2, namely, Chandani but the said assertion is not sufficient so as to justify that the opposite party no.2 belongs to the general category and not SC/ST, as more was required from the applicant to demonstrate while contending that the opposite party no. 2 does not belong to SC/ST category. Merely making bald allegations without there being any specific documents appended thereto, this Court is not required to delve into the said issue, particularly at a stage, when trial is to commence and the facts are to be thrashed out. So far as the theory sought to be propounded while the applicant regarding lodging of pendency of the civil proceedings is concerned being O.S. No. 59 of 2024 (Anil Kumar v. Babu Singh) is concerned and possession of an injunction order, the same at best is a defence which is to be taken when the trial commences, as obviously, it cannot be said as a matter of hard and fast rule that whenever there is any civil suit is pending before the competent forum, criminality cannot be attributed as it depends upon the facts and circumstance of the case.

12. As regards the proceedings lodged by the father-in-law of the opposite party no. 2 against the applicants under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. being Case No. 394 of 2024 is concerned, the same stood dismissed for non-prosecution and so far as the proceedings lodged by Poonam Sharma is concerned as stated by the applicants, summons had been issued. They are also matter of defences which cannot be gone into the facts and circumstances of the case.

13. In view of the said discussion, no case is made out. Accordingly, both the applications are consigned to record.

14. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submits that suitable direction be issued in light of the judgment in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another; decided on 07.10.2021 in S.L.P. No.5191 of 2021 with relation to enlargement on bail.

15. In the opinion of the Court, once a bail application is preferred then the same shall be considered with most expeditions strictly as per the law of the land without any delay.

Order Date :- 11.3.2025

A. Prajapati