# Ajay Rastogi & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 29
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-01-29
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1422 of 2019
- **Bench:** Anant Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ajay-rastogi-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45589
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law-Indian Penal CodeSections 323, 504 and Section 3 (1) (dha) of
SC/ST Act,- Appeal against conviction.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the
appellants that in the F.I.R. it was mentioned
that the complainant was addressed with his
caste but when the statement of complainant
was recorded during course of investigation, it
is stated that abuses were given but it is not
mentioned that he was addressed by caste by
the appellants. Even the eye witnesses also not
stated that the appellants had addressed the
complainant by his caste. Other witnesses also
not confirmed this fact that the complainant
was addressed by caste. (Para 4)

The trial court has not properly appreciated the
material
on
record
while
passing
the
summoning order against the appellants. (Para
9)

Criminal Appeal allowed. (E-2)

List of cases cited:-

 (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) : Gorige Pentaiahi Vs. St. of
A.P. & others

## Text

2 All. Ajay Rastogi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
29
 from
the
impugned
order
dated
29.01.2019 is that, even after taking
note of the principles aforesaid, the
High Court has apparently missed out
the substratum and has not applied the
applicable legal principles to the case
at hand."

8.

In
view
of
the
above
circumstances, the application is allowed.
Sentence awarded by the trial court against
the appellant No.1/applicant shall remain
suspended during pendency of the appeal.
----------
(2020)02ILR A29
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANANT KUMAR, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1422 of 2019

Ajay Rastogi & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Syed Raza Mehdi, Syed Husain Mehdi
[S.H.Me

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Mohd. Mateen

A. Criminal Law-Indian Penal CodeSections 323, 504 and Section 3 (1) (dha) of
SC/ST Act,- Appeal against conviction.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the
appellants that in the F.I.R. it was mentioned
that the complainant was addressed with his
caste but when the statement of complainant
was recorded during course of investigation, it
is stated that abuses were given but it is not
mentioned that he was addressed by caste by
the appellants. Even the eye witnesses also not
stated that the appellants had addressed the
complainant by his caste. Other witnesses also
not confirmed this fact that the complainant
was addressed by caste. (Para 4)

The trial court has not properly appreciated the
material
on
record
while
passing
the
summoning order against the appellants. (Para
9)

Criminal Appeal allowed. (E-2)

List of cases cited:-

 (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) : Gorige Pentaiahi Vs. St. of
A.P. & others

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anant Kumar, J.)

1. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of
the State is taken on record.

2. This criminal appeal under Section
14-A (1) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed for
setting aside the entire proceedings of
Special Sessions Trial No.115 of 2019,
under Sections 323, 504 IPC and Section 3
(1) (dha) of SC/ST Act, pending before the
Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional
Sessions Judge, District Balrampur as well
as the summoning order dated 05.07.2019,
passed
by
Special
Judge,
SC/ST
Act/Additional
Sessions
Judge,
Balrampur.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the appellant that in this case F.I.R.
was lodged by the complainant Shiv Lal to
the effect that on 19.02.2019, he had gone
in the market. At about 6.30 P.M. he was
talking with Om Prakashji. In the
meantime,
present
appellants
started
giving filthy abuses by addressing caste
and started beating. Then anyhow the
complainant
could
be
saved
by
30 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
intervention of several people of the
locality.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the appellants that in the F.I.R. it was
mentioned that the complainant was
addressed with his caste but when the
statement of complainant was recorded
during course of investigation, it is stated
that abuses were given but it is not
mentioned that he was addressed by caste
by the appellants. Even the eye witnesses
Om Prakash Mishra also not stated that the
appellants had addressed the complainant
by his caste. Other witnesses Ashish
Kumar Soni, Nitesh Kumar Soni, Sahid,
Dhiraj Kumar also not confirmed this fact
that the complainant was addressed by
caste.

5. It is further stated that as per
provisions of Section 3 (1) (dha) of SC/ST
Act, it is necessary that "whoever, not
being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe, intentionally insults or
intimidates with intent to humiliate a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe in any place within public
view." But in the present case during
investigation when the statement of eye
witnesses and complainant was recorded,
he have not stated that the appellants
addressed him by caste.

6. It is also stated by learned counsel
for the appellant that in the light of the
above assertion no case under Section 3
(1) (dha) of SC/ST Act is made out. In
support of the contention learned counsel
for the appellants have placed reliance
upon a case law (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) :
Gorige Pentaiahi Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh & others wherein in paragraph 6
of the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as
under :-

"6. In the instant case, the
allegation of Respondent 3 in the entire
complaint is that on 27-5-2004, the
appellant abused them with the name of
their caste. According to the basic
ingredients of Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act,
the complainant ought to have alleged
that the appellant-accused was not a
member of the Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe and he (Respondent 3)
was intentionally insulted or intimidated
by the accused with intent to humiliate in
a place within public view. In the entire
complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that
the appellant-accused was not a member
of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe and he intentionally insulted or
intimidated with intent to humiliate
Respondent 3 in a place within public
view. When the basic ingredients of the
offence are missing in the complaint,
then permitting such a complaint to
continue and to compel the appellant to
face the rigmarole of the criminal trial
would be totally unjustified leading to
abuse of process of law."

7. Opposing the appeal, learned
A.G.A. has submitted that complainant
was addressed by caste in the public view,
which was a market place, so, the case
under Section 3 (1) (dha) of SC/ST Act is
very well made out.

8.

However,
from
the
rival
contention, this Court finds that though in
the F.I.R. it is mentioned that complainant
was addressed by caste, as stipulated under
Section 3 (1) (dha) of SC/ST Act but in the
statements
recorded
during
the
investigation, no such assertion has been
made by any of the witnesses. Only this
much has been stated that complainant was
abused but it is not confirm that the
complainant was addressed by his caste or
2 All. Manish Kanaujia Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
31
 not, which is a mandatory requirement of
Section 3 (1) (dha) of SC/ST Act.

9.

In
view
of
the
above
circumstances, to my view the trial court
has not properly appreciated the material
on record while passing the summoning
order against the appellants.

10. Accordingly, the appeal is
allowed. The summoning order dated
05.07.2019, passed by the trial court, so
far it relates to summoning of the
appellants under Section 3 (1) (dha) of
SC/ST Act is set aside. However, it is
made clear that the trial court shall
proceed with the trial relating to other
sections in accordance with law.
----------
(2020)02ILR A31
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANANT KUMAR, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1423 of 2019

Manish Kanaujia ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Indrajeet Shukla, Manoj Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate

A.
Criminal
Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973-Section 397/401 & Indian
Penal Code,1860-Section- 363,366,376 &
Protection
of
Children
From
Sexual
Offence(POCSO)
Act,2012
&
Juvenile
Justice(Care
and
Protection
of
Children)Act,2015-Section 102-grant of bail
to juvenile-rejection of bail by lower courtHowever, Section 12(1) provides for bail to a
child in conflict with law-juvenile justice Act
is meant for minors who are innocent law
breakers-accused-juvenile granted bail on his
father furnishing a personal bond with two
sureties.(Para 3 to 8)

B. Section 12(1) of juvenile justice act
provides for If release is likely to bring that
person into association with any known
criminal or be exposed to any moral, physical
or psychological danger or the person's
release would defeat the ends of justice.
Board shall record the reasons for denying
bail.(Para 3)

Criminal Revision allowed.(E-6)

List of Cases Cited:

1. Rahul Patel Vs. St. Of U.P. & Anr.{2018(1) JIC
357 (All)}

2. Gurjeet Singh Vs. St. Of U.P. & Anr.{2018(3) JIC
48 (All)}

3. Om Prakash Vs. St. Of Rajasthan and Anr,(2012)
5 SCC 201

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anant Kumar, J.)

1. This Criminal revision under Section
102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 has been filed against the
judgment and order dated 20.09.2019, passed
by
the
learned
Additional
Sessions
Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Ambedkar
Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2019, by
which the order dated 30.07.2019, passed by
the Juvenile Justice Board, Ambedkar Nagar in
Bail Application No.22 of 2019 relating to
Case Crime No. 65 of 2019, under Section
363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO
Act,
Police
Station
Bhiti,
District
Ambedkar Nagar hsa been confirmed.

2. In this case an F.I.R. was lodged
on 20.04.2019 to the effect that on