# Anita Devi Pal v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 502
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-07-26
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No 1768 of 2018
- **Bench:** Suresh Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anita-devi-pal-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47241
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973
-
Section
374(2)
-
Indian Penal Code, 1860- Scheduled
Caste & Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 -
Sections 147/323/504 & 3(1)(Da &
(Dha) and 2(V)(Ka) - challenge tosubsequent FIR- the first FIR was
lodged by the complainant on 8.11.2017
8 All. Anita Devi Pal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
503
against the present appellant and other
co-accused
Mahila
Thana,

and
subsequent FIR was lodged by the
complainant on 29.11.2017 on G.R.P.
Charbagh against appellant as u/s 147,
323 504 IPC and Section 3 (1) (Da &
Dha) and 3 (2) (v) of the SC/ST Act by
making improvement in FIR. It is alleged
that accused uses caste abusive word
"Pasi and Chamar" intimidating her with
filthy language. Any further complaint
by the same complainant against the
same person on same set of fact
subsequent to the registration of the
case
is
invalid.
Subsequent
to the
lodging of FIR on the same set of fact
against
same
accused
amounts
to
double jeopardy and it is also hit by
Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of
India, which states as under: "No person
shall be prosecuted and punished for the
same offence more than once." Since the
second FIR is relating to the same date,
time and place of occurrence, so the
second FIR is not permissible under law,
Hence, subsequent FIR is liable to be
quashed.(Para 1 to 15)

The appeal is allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

502 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
proving intention of the appellant in
committing the offence upon PW-3-Phoola
Devi
only
because
she
belongs
to
Scheduled Caste community, the conviction
of the appellant under Section 3(2)(v) of the
SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act cannot
be sustained."

16. We in the light of above
parameters examine as to whether in the
instant case an offence under Section
3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act is made out or not.

17. PW-1 feigns complete ignorance
as to the identity of both the accused, while
PW-5 is familiar with both of them. We
hasten to add that it was the case of
prosecution that the accused were also not
aware of as to the identity of PW-1 (victim)
as it was the case of prosecution that the
accused inquired from PW-5 as to the
identity of PW-1/ the victim to which PW-5
only replied that she happens to be her
colleague. We thus do not find any shred of
evidence to infer that the accused had any
previous knowledge as to the identity of
PW-1/ the victim therefor it can be said
with reasonable certainty that the alleged
offence was not committed on the ground
that
the
victim
belongs
to
SC/ST
community.

18. We in the light of above
discussion are of the considered view that
in so far the conviction of appellants under
Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act is concerned,
same cannot be sustained while conviction
under Section 376 and 506 IPC is liable to
be maintained. Consequently, the appeal is
liable to be allowed in part.

19. The appeal is allowed in part.
The judgment and order dated 3.10.2016 is
set aside to the extent it convicts and
sentences the appellants under Section
3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. Conviction under
Section 376 and 506 IPC is maintained.

20. Appellant no.1 has admittedly
served incarceration for more than 9 years
from the date of impugned judgment, while
appellant no.2 is in jail for more than 14
years. We are thus of the view that
appellants are liable to be released on
sentence undergone.

Appellants be released forthwith
unless wanted in any other case.

Let a copy of this judgment along
with records be sent to the judgeship
concerned for ensuring compliance under
intimation to this Court.
----------
(2021)08ILR A502
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Criminal Appeal No 1768 of 2018

Anita Devi Pal ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sudhir Kumar Singh, Santosh Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate, Umesh Singh

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973
-
Section
374(2)
-
Indian Penal Code, 1860- Scheduled
Caste & Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 -
Sections 147/323/504 & 3(1)(Da &
(Dha) and 2(V)(Ka) - challenge tosubsequent FIR- the first FIR was
lodged by the complainant on 8.11.2017
8 All. Anita Devi Pal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
503
against the present appellant and other
co-accused
Mahila
Thana,

and
subsequent FIR was lodged by the
complainant on 29.11.2017 on G.R.P.
Charbagh against appellant as u/s 147,
323 504 IPC and Section 3 (1) (Da &
Dha) and 3 (2) (v) of the SC/ST Act by
making improvement in FIR. It is alleged
that accused uses caste abusive word
"Pasi and Chamar" intimidating her with
filthy language. Any further complaint
by the same complainant against the
same person on same set of fact
subsequent to the registration of the
case
is
invalid.
Subsequent
to the
lodging of FIR on the same set of fact
against
same
accused
amounts
to
double jeopardy and it is also hit by
Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of
India, which states as under: "No person
shall be prosecuted and punished for the
same offence more than once." Since the
second FIR is relating to the same date,
time and place of occurrence, so the
second FIR is not permissible under law,
Hence, subsequent FIR is liable to be
quashed.(Para 1 to 15)

The appeal is allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. T.T. Antony Vs St. of Ker. & ors. (2001) (6)
SCC 181

2. Surender Kaushik & ors. Vs. St. of U.P. & ors.
(2013) 5 SCC 148

(Delivered by Hon'ble Suresh Kumar
Gupta, J.)

1. Vide order dated 04.09.2019, this
Court passed the following orders:-

"Vakalatnama filed by Sri Umesh
Singh, Advocate, on behalf of opposite
party no. 2, is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the
appellant, learned counsel for opposite
party as well as learned A.G.A. appearing
for the State, pertaining to the prayer of
bail of the appellant.

This criminal appeal has been
filed by the appellant under Section 14A (1)
of the Schedule Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
to quash the summoning order 10.07.2018
and charge sheet dated 28.03.2018, in S.T.
No. 270/2018, pending before the Court of
Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow on the
basis of F.I.R. lodged by the opposite party
no. 2 at Police Station Charbagh, District
Lucknow, which is registered as Case
Crime
No.
614/2017,
under
Section
147/323/504 I.P.C. and 3(1)(Da & (Dha)
and 2(V)(Ka) of SC/ST Act.

It is submitted by learned counsel
for the appellant that opposite party no. 2
initially had lodged the F.I.R. registered as
case crime No. 0162/2017, Police Station
Mahila Thana, District Lucknow, under
Sections 147, 323 and 504 I.P.C. in which
charge sheet has been filed and the
petitioner has been enlarged on bail.
Thereafter opposite party no. 2 maliciously
lodged the second F.I.R. for the same
incident which was registered as case
crime No. 0614/2017, Police Station G.R.P.
Charbagh, under Section 147/323/504
I.P.C., and Section 3(1)(Da and Dha) and
2(V)(Ka) of SC/ST Act.

It is contended on behalf of the
appellant that from the perusal of both the
first information reports, the second F.I.R.
has been lodged by the complainant only to
harass the appellant and false accusation
under S.C. and S.T. Act has been levelled.
It is next contended that the petitioner is
already facing trial in the Court of Special
C.J.M., (A.P), Lucknow for the same
incident, therefore, the second F.I.R. for the
504 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
same incident she cannot be compelled to
face the second trial and in this regard the
petitioner counsel has relied on the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
reported in "(2001)(6) SCC 181 T.T.
Antony Vs. State of Kerala and others",
wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that the
second F.I.R. for the same incident is not
permissible
and
consequently
the
investigation made pursuant thereto has no
legal consequences and was pleased to
quashed the second F.I.R.

In view of the above, the
proceedings of Case Crime No. 614/2017,
under Section 147/323/504 I.P.C. and
3(1)(Da & (Dha) and 2(V)(Ka) of SC/ST
Act, Police Station G.R.P. Charbagh,
District Lucknow pending before the Court
of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow,
shall remain stayed till the next date of
listing.

Learned counsel for opposite
party no. 2 prays for and is granted four
weeks time to file counter affidavit.

Rejoinder, if any, may be filed
within two week's thereafter.

List on 24.10.2019."

2. After 04.09.2019, the case was fixed
on 2.7.2019, on that date, the case was
ordered to be listed for today i.e. 26.07.2021.

3. Case called out. Only learned counsel
for appellant as well as learned A.G.A. is
present for the State. No one has put in
appearance on behalf of the opposite party
no. 2.

4.

Heard
learned
counsel
for
appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the material available on record.

5. This appeal has been preferred
under Section 14 (A) (1) of the Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 against impugned
summoning order dated10.7.2018 passed
by learned Special Judge, (SC/ST Act),
Lucknow in S.T. No. 270 of 2018 arising
out of Case Crime No. 614 of 2018, under
Sections 147, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3
(1) (DA & Dha) and Section 3 (2) (V) (Ka)
of SC/ST Act as well as charge sheet dated
28.03.2018 submitted by the police in the
aforesaid case crime number.

6. The main contention of learned
counsel for the petitioner is that earlier an
FIR was lodged against the appellant and
six other persons in Mahila Thana on
08.11.2017 as Case Crime No. 162 of 2017,
under Sections 147, 323 and 504 IPC. After
investigation, charge sheet was filed
against the appellant on 19.01.2018 under
Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. and all other named
co-accused
persons
exonerated.
In
pursuance of this charge sheet, cognizance
order was passed against the appellant on
17.03.2019.

7. Since the offence was bailable and
the
appellant
has
obtained
bail
on
02.05.2018, on the basis of same allegation,
same substance and same set of fact
another FIR was lodged by the first
informant on 29.11.2017 against the
appellant and other accused persons under
Sections 147, 323, & 504 IPC and Section
3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST Act. After lodging
the FIR on 29.11.2017, charge sheet was
filed against the appellant and other coaccused persons on 28.03.2018 under
Sections 147, 323, & 504 IPC and Section
3 (1) (Da & Dha) and 3 (2) (v) (Ka) of the
SC/ST Act. In pursuance of the charge
sheet dated 28.03.2018, the learned Special
Judge (SC/ST Act), took cognizance on
8 All. Anita Devi Pal Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
505
10.7.2018 and passed summoning order
against the appellant and other accusedpersons.

8.

Being
aggrieved
with
the
summoning order dated 10.07.2018, the
instant criminal appeal has been preferred
with the prayer that since the appellant is
already facing trial in the court of learned
Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I.
(A.P.), Lucknow for the same offence, then
the appellant cannot be forced to face trial
for same offence, for which the summoning
order dated 10.7.2018 has been passed by
learned
Special
Judge
(SC/ST
Act),
Lucknow.

9. In support of his submission,
learned counsel for appellant has drawn the
attention of this Court towards the authority
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala and others
reported in (2001) (6) SCC 181 wherein in
paragraph no. 35 ot has been held as
under:-

"35. For the aforementioned
reasons, the registration of the second FIR
under Section 154 CrPC on the basis of the
letter of the Director General of Police as
Crime No. 268 of 1997 of Kuthuparamba
Police Station is not valid and consequently
the investigation made pursuant thereto is
of
no
legal
consequence,
they
are
accordingly quashed. We hasten to add that
this does not preclude the investigating
agency from seeking leave of the Court in
Crimes Nos. 353 and 354 of 1994 for
making further investigations and filing a
further report or reports under Section
173(8)
CrPC
before
the
competent
Magistrate in the said cases. In this view of
the matter, we are not inclined to interfere
with the judgment of the High Court under
challenge insofar as it relates to quashing
of Crime No. 268 of 1997 of Kuthuparamba
Police Station against the ASP (R.A.
Chandrasekhar); in all other aspects the
impugned judgment of the High Court shall
stand set aside."

10. Learned counsel for appellant has
further drawn the attention of this Court
towards the authority in the case of
Surender Kaushik and others vs State of
Uttar Pradesh and others reported in
(2013) 5 SCC 148 wherein in paragraph no.
25, it has been held as under:-

"25. In the case at hand, the
appellants lodged FIR No. 274 of 2012
against four accused persons alleging that
they had prepared fake and fraudulent
documents. The second FIR came to be
registered on the basis of the direction
issued by the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate in exercise of power
under Section 156(3) of the Code at the
instance of another person alleging, inter
alia, that he was neither present in the
meetings nor had he signed any of the
resolutions of the meetings and the accused
persons,
five
in
number,
including
Appellant
1
herein,
had
fabricated
documents and filed the same before the
competent authority. FIR No. 442 of 2012
(which gave rise to Crime No. 491 of 2012)
was registered because of an order passed
by the learned Magistrate. Be it noted, the
complaint was filed by another member of
the governing body of the Society and the
allegation was that the accused persons,
twelve in number, had entered into a
conspiracy and prepared forged documents
relating to the meetings held on different
dates. There was allegation of fabrication
of the signatures of the members and filing
of forged documents before the Registrar of
Societies with the common intention to
grab the property/funds of the Society. If
506 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the involvement of the number of accused
persons and the nature of the allegations
are scrutinised, it becomes crystal clear
that every FIR has a different spectrum.
The allegations made are distinct and
separate. It may be regarded as a countercomplaint and cannot be stated that an
effort has been made to improve the
allegations that find place in the first FIR.
It is well-nigh impossible to say that the
principle of sameness gets attracted. We
are inclined to think so, for if the said
principle is made applicable to the case at
hand and the investigation is scuttled by
quashing the FIRs, the complainants in the
other two FIRs would be deprived of
justice. The appellants have lodged the FIR
making the allegations against certain
persons, but that does not debar the other
aggrieved persons to move the court for
direction of registration of an FIR as there
have been other accused persons including
the complainant in the first FIR involved in
the forgery and fabrication of documents
and getting benefits from the statutory
authority. In the ultimate eventuate, how
the
trial
would
commence
and
be
concluded is up to the court concerned. The
appellants or any of the other complainants
or the accused persons may move the
appropriate court for a trial in one court.
That is another aspect altogether. But to
say that it is a second FIR relating to the
same cause of action and the same incident
and there is sameness of occurrence and an
attempt has been made to improvise the
case is not correct. Hence, we conclude
and hold that the submission that the FIR
lodged by the fourth respondent is a second
FIR and is, therefore, liable to be quashed,
does not merit acceptance.

11. The fact of this case is squarely
covered by the above-cited precedent of
Hon'ble the Apex Court.

12. Therefore, the opinion of this
Court is that any further complaint by the
same complainant against the same person
on same set of fact subsequent to the
registration
of
the
case
is
invalid.
Subsequent to the lodging of FIR on the
same set of fact against same accused
amounts to double jeopardy and it is also
hit by Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of
India, which states as under:

"No person shall be prosecuted
and punished for the same offence more
than once."

13. In the present case, the first FIR
was lodged by the complainant on
8.11.2017 against the present appellant and
other co-accused persons under Section
147, 323, and 504 IPC, in Police Station
Mahila Thana, Lucknow and subsequent
FIR was lodged by the complainant on
29.11.2017 on G.R.P. Charbagh against
appellant as Case Crime No. 614 of 2017,
under Sections 147, 323 504 IPC and
Section 3 (1) (Da & Dha) and 3 (2) (v) of
the SC/ST Act by making improvement in
FIR. It is alleged that accused uses caste
abusive
word
"Pasi
and
Chamar"
intimidating her with filthy language.

14. Since the second FIR is relating to
the same date,
time
and place of
occurrence, so the second FIR is not
permissible under law as propounded by
Hon'ble Supreme Court referred above.
Consequently, summoning order dated
10.7.2018 passed in subsequent FIR and
charge sheet dated 28.3.20018 submitted by
the police in Sessions Trial No. 270 of
2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 614 of
2018 under Sections 147, 323 & 504 IPC
and Section 3 (1) (Da) (Dha) & 3 (2) (v)
(ka) of the SC/ST Act pending in the court
of learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act),
8 All. Sadan Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
507
Lucknow is liable to be quashed but earlier
case bearing Case Crime No. 162 of 2017,
under Sections 147, 323 and 504 IPC,
Police Station Mahila Thana, Lucknow
pending before Special C.J.M. (A.P.)
Lucknow shall continue. If any grievance
to the first informant, then she may
approach through Investigating Officer
under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C.

15. In view of the above discussions,
this appeal is hereby allowed.

16. Learned Special Judge (SC/ST
Act), Lucknow is hereby directed to pass
fresh order in accordance with law.
----------

(2021)08ILR A507
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Criminal Appeal No 2293 of 1983

Sadan Yadav & Anr. ...Appellants(In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri R.Pande, Sri Anand Prakash Paul, Sri
P.K. Singh, Sri B.B. Paul

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A., Sri Jai Bahadur Singh

(A) Criminal Law - The Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Section 307 - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 207,313 -
appeal against conviction -Testimony of
sole witness is to be considered with care
and caution - evidence of the injured
witness should be relied upon unless there
are grounds for the rejection of his
evidence
on
the
basis
of
major
contradictions and discrepancies therein -
the evidence of injured witness, being a
stamped witness, is accorded a special
status in law - For the conviction under
this section more importance has been
given to mens rea or intention than the
actus reus or the actual act itself.(Para -
21,22,23,35)

Dispute between appellants and informant -
informant gave some money to appellant - for
liquor and not returning it to him - appellant got
annoyed - appellant assaulted him - hurled
bombs on him - fell near his legs and exploded
causing injuries on his both legs - no repetion -
simple injuries - not dangerous to life - Bomb
not hurled on head or some other vital part of
the body of informant.

HELD:-There was no intention of the accused
appellant to kill the injured . Injured sustained
simple injuries on non-vital part of his body.
Conviction of the appellant under Section 307
IPC cannot be sustained but appellant is liable
to be convicted for the offence under Section
324 IPC. Conviction & sentence imposed on the
appellant under Section 307 IPC is set aside
instead convicted under Section 324 IPC.(Para -
40, 41,43)

Criminal Appeal partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:-

1. St. of U.P. Vs Naresh & ors., (2011) 4 SCC
324

2. Mamo Dutt Vs St. of U.P. , (2012) 4 SCC 79

3. Balwan Singh & ors.Vs St. Of Har. ,(2014) 13
SCC 560

4. St. Of Mah. Vs Balram Bama Patil , AIR 1983
SC 305

5. Jage Ram Vs St. of Har. , (2015) 11 SCC 366

6. St. of M.P.Vs Kanha @ Om Prakash , Crl. A.
No. 1589 of 2018

7. Ramesh Vs St. of U.P. , AIR 1992 S.C. 664