# Jai Prakash Verma & Ors v. Sri Ravindra Kumar Tomar, Director & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 12 ILRA 239
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-12-19
- **Case number:** Contempt Application (Civil) No. 1336 of 2023
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jai-prakash-verma-ors-v-sri-ravindra-kumar-tomar-director-anr-49553
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Act, 1971 - Section 12 - Law is trite that if
any Constitutional Court passes any order
and no interim order/final order is passed
against that order and if that order attains
finality, no other interpretation is possible
by any authority of the State except to
comply that order in its letter and spirit,
further the compliance of the order of
Constitutional Court may not depend upon
the guidelines of the superior authority of
the State Government - Contempt petition
was
dismissed
on
the
affidavit
of
compliance
of
opposite
party
no.
4
240 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
wherein he indicated that he had complied
with the order of the Writ Court in its
letter and spirit - After the dismissal of the
contempt petition, the order of the Writ
Court was again flouted as the petitioners
were not paid the salary in terms of the
order of Writ Court - In the letter
preferred
by
opposite
party
no.
4
addressing the Chief Standing Counsel, he
indicated that since the payment of
minimum wages to the daily wagers
would be in violation of the Government
Order dated 09.02.2023, therefore, he was
finding himself in a difficult situation as to
whether the daily wagers should be paid
the minimum wages or not - While
tendering his unconditional apology, he
said that he has not deliberately and
willfully disobeyed the order of the Court
but had sought guidelines from the
superior authority as to whether he should
make compliance of the order of Writ
Court by making payment of minimum
wages/salary to the daily wagers - Held :
Opposite party no. 4 has committed
intentional,
deliberate
and
willful
contempt of the Court - Opposite party no.
4 punished with the fine of Rs. 2000/-
(Paras 10, 10A, 14, 15, 16).

Allowed. (E-5)

## Text

12 All. Jai Prakash Verma & Ors. Vs. Sri Ravindra Kumar Tomar, Director & Anr.
239
settlement in the aforesaid case and with
this object they had manufactured the
incident and on the basis of this statement,
the applicant was made an accused.

26. The offence alleged are Section
120-B, 201, 211, 195 I.P.C., which carry a
maximum punishment of imprisonment up
to seven years. Besides the statement of a
named co-accused person, there is no other
material to prima facie establish applicant's
complicity in commission of the offence.
Even that named accused person has not
assigned any specific role to the applicant.

27. The matter requires consideration.

28. The learned A.G.A. may file a
counter affidavit within one week from
today.

29. Having considered the aforesaid
facts and circumstances of the case, I am of
the view that the aforesaid facts are
sufficient for making out a case for
granting interim anticipatory bail to the
applicant.

30. Accordingly, as an interim
measure, it is provided that that till next
date of listing in the event of arrest/
appearance of applicant before the learned
Trial Court in the aforesaid case, he shall be
released on interim anticipatory bail on his
furnishing personal bond and two solvent
sureties, each in the like amount, to the
satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on
the following conditions and subject to any
other conditions that may be fixed by the
Trial Court:

(i). That the applicant shall appear
before the trial court on each date fixed,
unless personal presence is exempted;

(ii). That the applicant shall not,
directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
him from disclosing such facts to the court
or to any police officer or tamper with the
evidence;

(iii). That the applicant shall not
pressurize/
intimidate
the
prosecution
witness.

31. List this case in the week
commencing 08.01.2024.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 239
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Contempt Application (Civil) No. 1336 of 2023

Jai Prakash Verma & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
Sri Ravindra Kumar Tomar, Director & Anr.
 ...Opp.Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Vinod Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
--

Contempt of Court - Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 - Section 12 - Law is trite that if
any Constitutional Court passes any order
and no interim order/final order is passed
against that order and if that order attains
finality, no other interpretation is possible
by any authority of the State except to
comply that order in its letter and spirit,
further the compliance of the order of
Constitutional Court may not depend upon
the guidelines of the superior authority of
the State Government - Contempt petition
was
dismissed
on
the
affidavit
of
compliance
of
opposite
party
no.
4
240 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
wherein he indicated that he had complied
with the order of the Writ Court in its
letter and spirit - After the dismissal of the
contempt petition, the order of the Writ
Court was again flouted as the petitioners
were not paid the salary in terms of the
order of Writ Court - In the letter
preferred
by
opposite
party
no.
4
addressing the Chief Standing Counsel, he
indicated that since the payment of
minimum wages to the daily wagers
would be in violation of the Government
Order dated 09.02.2023, therefore, he was
finding himself in a difficult situation as to
whether the daily wagers should be paid
the minimum wages or not - While
tendering his unconditional apology, he
said that he has not deliberately and
willfully disobeyed the order of the Court
but had sought guidelines from the
superior authority as to whether he should
make compliance of the order of Writ
Court by making payment of minimum
wages/salary to the daily wagers - Held :
Opposite party no. 4 has committed
intentional,
deliberate
and
willful
contempt of the Court - Opposite party no.
4 punished with the fine of Rs. 2000/-
(Paras 10, 10A, 14, 15, 16).

Allowed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard.

2. This Court has passed the order
dated 30.11.2023 which reads as under:

"[C.M. Application No. IA/3/2023
(Recall application)]

1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Shukla,
learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri
Mohit Jauhari, learned Standing Counsel
on the application for recall of the order
dated 19.10.2023.

2. In the aforesaid application, it was
informed that despite the contempt petition
having been decided/dismissed for the
reason that the order of Writ Court has
been complied with, the opposite party has
again flouted the order, therefore direction
for personal appearance was issued on
22.11.2023, the order reads as under:

"1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Shukla,
learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri
Mohit Jauhari, learned Standing Counsel.

2. Sri Shukla, learned counsel for the
petitioners has submitted that after making
compliance of order of the Writ Court in its
letter and spirit an affidavit of compliance
has been filed by the authority concerned
i.e. Sri Suresh Kumar, Joint Director,
Horticulture Experiment and Training
Centre, Saharanpur, who has later on
stopped the salary of the petitioners and
when the petitioners filed an application
demanding their salary in terms of order of
the Writ Court and in terms of the affidavit
of compliance so filed, the authority
concerned refused to make payment of
salary to the petitioners.

3. Be that as it may, if the authority
has done the aforesaid act, this is a serious
issue wherein the coercive order may be
passed against him on the next date.

4. Since the aforesaid fact has been
stated on affidavit, therefore, this Court
may take cognizance of the aforesaid fact
and Sri Mohit Jauhari, learned Standing
Counsel may seek specific instructions on
that.

5. List on 30.11.2023 along with
paper-book of this case.

6. On that date, the officer concerned
i.e. Sri Suresh Kumar, Joint Director,
Horticulture Experiment and Training
Centre, Saharanpur, shall appear in person
before the Court.

7. At the same time, if the fact so
stated in the affidavit of the petitioners is
found to be incorrect, the appropriate
12 All. Jai Prakash Verma & Ors. Vs. Sri Ravindra Kumar Tomar, Director & Anr.
241
direction may be issued against the
petitioners also.

8. Sri Mohit Jauhari, learned Standing
Counsel shall intimate this order to the
officer concerned for its compliance."

3. Sri Mohit Jauhari has stated that
the aforesaid order has been informed to
the authority concerned through e-mail on
the District Magistrate, Saharanpur as well
as on the e-mail of the authority concerned
i.e. Sri Suresh Kumar, Joint Director,
Horticulture Experiment and Training
Centre, Saharanpur. Even on his personal
Whatsapp number, the information has
been given but the said authority is not
present in person, rather he has sent a
message on Whatsapp number of the
counsel to the effect that the making
payment of minimum pay scale to the
petitioners is against the Rules, therefore,
the same cannot be paid. Notably, the
authority concerned after re-visiting his
earlier order, passed afresh order and
considering that order, the contempt
petition was dismissed on 19.10.2023. The
officer has not stated as to why he could
not appear in person, inasmuch as no
application for exemption has been filed by
him.

4. The relevant correspondences have
been shown by Sri Mohit Jauhri to the
Court and those correspondences shall be
produced on the next date by him.

5. Before considering the aforesaid
application i.e. recall application, it would
be pertinent to indicate that the order dated
19.10.2023, whereby the contempt petition
was dismissed for the reason that the
authority concerned has re-visited its
earlier order and passed appropriate order
making payment of arrears of salary in a
same manner which has been paid to the
identically placed employee serving in
Horticulture Department, State of U.P. The
order dated 19.10.2023 reads as under:

"1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners.

2. This Court has passed order dated
11.10.2023 which reads as under :

"1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant/petitioners
and
Mr.
Mohit
Jauhari, Standing Counsel for opposite
parties.

2. This Court had passed order on
25.09.2023, which reads as under:-

"[Order on Impleadment Application)]

1. Sri Vinod Kumar Shukla, learned
counsel for the petitioners has filed the
impleadment application, the same is taken
on record.

2. Office is directed to allot the
number to the application for impleadment.

3.
On
due
consideration,
the
application for impleadment is allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners
is permitted to implead 'Sri Atul Kumar,
Director, Horticulture & Food Processing,
U.P., Lucknow, as opposite party no. 3 and
'Sri
Suresh
Kumar,
Joint
Director,
Horticultural Experiment and Training
Center, Saharanpur' as opposite party no.
4, during the course of the day. Steps be
taken within 3 days. After the necessary
exercise being carried out in terms of this
order, notices be issued to newly impleaded
opposite parties nos. 3 and 4.

[Order on Contempt Petition]

1. Sri Mayanker Singh, learned
Standing
Counsel,
on
the
basis
of
instructions, has stated that the order of
Writ Court would be complied with in it's
letter and spirit very soon. He has also
informed that in other cases, which are
more or less identical to the present case,
the compliance has been made.

2. List this case on 11.10.2023.

3. On or before 11.10.2023, the
affidavit of compliance shall be filed,
242 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
making compliance of the order of Writ
Court in it's letter and spirit, failing which
the newly impleaded opposite party no. 3,
namely,
Sri
Atul
Kumar,
Director,
Horticulture & Food Processing, U.P.,
Lucknow and opposite party no. 4, namely,
Sri
Suresh
Kumar,
Joint
Director,
Horticultural Experiment and Training
Center,
Saharanpur,
shall
appear
in
person."

3. In compliance of the aforesaid
order, Mr. Suresh Kumar, Joint Director,
Horticulture Experiment and Training
Center, Saharanpur, is present in person.

4. Mr. Mohit Jauhari has filed three
affidavits of compliance of opposite party
nos. 2, 3, and 4, the same are taken on
record.

5. As per affidavit of Mr. Atul Kumar
Singh, Director, Horticulture & Food
Processing U.P., Lucknow, as well as
affidavit of Mr. J.R. Verma, Superintendent,
Government Garden, Alambagh, Lucknow
a chart has been prepared for making
payment of the dues to the petitioners.

6. The aforesaid chart has been
prepared strictly in terms of the order of the
writ-Court for making payment of minimum
of pay-scale. However, in the affidavit, so
filed by Mr. Suresh Kumar, the officer, who
is present in person before this Court, the
amount has been reduced, which has been
indicated in Annexure A-5 to the affidavit
filed by him today. On being confronted, as
to why he has changed the amount which
has already been sanctioned and the
competent authority has directed to make
payment
to
the
petitioners
as
per
calculation so made, the officer, who is
present in person, has tried to explain that
he divided the amount which is to be paid
to the applicant/petitioners only on the
basis of working days. However, it has been
submitted that he has been made to
understand that in compliance of the order
of the writ-Court he cannot undertake such
exercise and, therefore, Mr. Mohit Jauhani
has requested on behalf of the officer, who
is present in person, to provide some
reasonable time to revisit the aforesaid
order and pass appropriate order as has
been passed in the case of other similarly
placed employees of the Department
serving in the State of U.P.

7. In view of above, let this matter be
listed on 19.10.2023.

8. In the meantime, the officer shall
revisit his order and pass a fresh order.

9. Mr. Mohit Jauhari shall file a fresh
affidavit of compliance on the next date of
listing, making compliance of the order of
the writ-Court in its letter and spirit, failing
which the officer, who is present today,
shall again appear in person."

3. In compliance of the aforesaid order
Sri Mohit Jauhari, learned Standing
Counsel has filed affidavit of compliance
wherein the deponent is Sri Suresh Kumar,
Joint Director, Horticultural Experiment
and Training Center, Saharanpur. Sri
Jauhari has drawn attention of this Court
towards Annexure no. 1 which is order
dated 16.10.2023 whereby the authority
concerned has revisited his earlier order
and passed the order making payment of
arrears of salary in the same manner, the
same has been paid to the identically
placed
employees
serving
in
the
Horticulture Department, State of U.P.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has, however, submitted that now the order
of the writ court has been complied with in
its letter and spirit but the petitioners have
not been paid salary of the month of
September, 2023. On that Sri Mohit Jauhari
stated that salary bills of the petitioners are
in the Treasury and they shall be paid their
salary for the month of September and
thereafter they shall be paid regular salary.
12 All. Jai Prakash Verma & Ors. Vs. Sri Ravindra Kumar Tomar, Director & Anr.
243

5. In the wake of the aforesaid
development
nothing
remains
to
be
adjudicated
in
the
present
contempt
petition.

6. Accordingly, the contempt petition is
dismissed.

7. Notices discharged."

6. Considering the aforesaid facts, the
application for recall of the order dated
19.10.2023 is allowed. The order dated
19.10.2023 is recalled and the contempt
petition is revived on its original number.

7. Since the authority concerned,
namely, Sri Suresh Kumar, Joint Director,
Horticulture Experiment and Training
Centre, Saharanpur, who had himself filed
an affidavit in the contempt petition that he
had made compliance of the order of Writ
Court
in
its
letter
and
spirit
and
subsequently he is saying that such
compliance was not appropriate, rather
that compliance was contrary to the Rules,
therefore, this is a case of admitted
contempt. Since neither he is present in
person in terms of order dated 22.11.2023
nor has given any explanation for his nonappearance, therefore, this Court has no
option but to issue bailable warrant against
him. Further, since the aforesaid authority
had already appeared before the Court and
he was duly represented by the Standing
Counsel, therefore, there is no need to issue
him fresh notice as he would be again
represented
by
the
learned
Standing
Counsel.

8. Let bailable warrant be issued
against Sri Suresh Kumar, Joint Director,
Horticulture Experiment and Training
Centre, Saharanpur, executable by the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur
forthwith.
If
the
aforesaid
officer
appears/surrenders
before
the
CJM,
Saharanpur, he may be granted bail but
CJM shall ensure his presence before this
Court on the next date.

9. It is made clear that if the aforesaid
officer does not appear on the next date
and flouts the bailable warrant, further
coercive order may be passed on the next
date, therefore, the CJM, Saharanpur shall
make compliance of this order and
authority concerned shall also make
compliance of the aforesaid order.

10. List this case on 19th of December,
2023.

11.
Sri
Mohit
Jauhari,
learned
Standing Counsel shall also intimate this
order to the officer concerned."

3. In compliance of the aforesaid
order, opposite party no. 4, namely, Sri
Suresh Kumar, Joint Director, Horticulture
Experiment
and
Training
Centre,
Saharanpur is present in person alongwith
the affidavit of compliance, the same is
taken on record.

4. Sri Mohit Jauhari, learned Standing
Counsel
has
provided
some
correspondences of the authority with the
Chief Standing Counsel as well as with the
other authorities showing bonafide of the
authority that he has not intentionally
flouted the direction of this Court, the same
are taken on record.

5. This is a peculiar case where
contempt petition was dismissed on the
affidavit of compliance of opposite party
no. 4 to the effect that he has done the
compliance of the order of Writ Court in its
letter and spirit. Notably, after the dismissal
of the contempt petition, the order of the
Writ Court was again flouted as the
petitioners were not paid the salary in terms
of the order of Writ Court, however the
same was paid earlier, as has been indicated
in the affidavit of compliance filed by the
same authority before the dismissal of the
contempt petition.
244 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. The application for revival of the
contempt petition was filed and after
noticing the fact that not only the order of
the Writ Court but also the order of the
Contempt Court has been flouted, the
direction was issued to the authority to
appear in person and apprise the Court as to
why and as to how he has flouted the order
of Writ Court as well as order of the
Contempt Court when on his affidavit the
contempt petition was dismissed, he could
not appear but provided the information to
the learned Standing Counsel that in view
of the various decisions, being taken by the
superior authority of the State, the
petitioners and similarly placed employees
may not be paid the minimum wages,
however, neither any application for
exemption was filed nor he was appeared in
person, therefore, having no other option,
this Court had issued bailable warrant on
30.11.2023 fixing the date for today.

7. Sri Mohit Jauhari has stated that the
authority has again complied with the order
of
Writ
Court
and
he
has
given
unconditional apology saying that he has
got utmost faith and respect towards the
law of land and towards the majesty of the
law. So as to show his bonafide, Sri Mohit
Jauhari has placed reliance of one letter
dated 10.11.2023 preferred by the opposite
party no. 4 addressing to the Director,
Horticulture, referring one Government
Order dated 09.02.2023, seeking guidelines
as to whether the petitioners and other
similarly placed daily wagers may be given
minimum wages but no guideline is said to
have been received by the authority.

8. Sri Jauhari has drawn attention of
this Court towards the Government Order
dated 09.02.2023 which has been provided
to him by opposite party no. 4 to impress
the Court that in terms of the aforesaid
Government Order, the daily wagers should
not be paid the minimum wages. In the
latter dated 29.11.2023, preferred by
opposite party no. 4, addressing to the
Chief Standing Counsel, he has clearly
indicated that since the payment of
minimum wages to the daily wagers would
be in violation of the Government Order
dated 09.02.2023, therefore, he is finding
himself in a difficult situation as to whether
the daily wagers should be paid the
minimum wages or not. He has referred the
letter dated 10.11.2023 (supra) apprising
the Chief Standing Counsel that no
guidelines have been received to him till
date.

9. Sri Mohit Jauhari has submitted
that since the order of Writ Court has been
complied with, therefore, the authority, who
is present in person, may be discharged
from the contempt proceeding.

10. Be that as it may, the law is trite that
if any Constitutional Court passes any order
and no interim order/final order is passed
against that order and if that order attains
finality, no other interpretation is possible by
any authority of the State except to comply
that order in its letter and spirit. Further, the
compliance of the order of Constitutional
Court may not depend upon the guidelines of
the
superior
authority
of
the
State
Government or of the particular department,
inasmuch as any authority of the State
Government, to be more precise any highest
bureaucrat of the State Government, is not
superior to the Constitutional Court and the
majesty of law may not be taken for granted.
If any authority considers that for making
compliance
of
the
order
of
Writ
Court/Constitutional Court, the guidelines of
any superior authority/State Machinery is
required, it would be tantamount to a
contempt.
12 All. Jai Prakash Verma & Ors. Vs. Sri Ravindra Kumar Tomar, Director & Anr.
245

10A.This Court in re:Dr. Rohit Gupta
Vs. The Principal, S.N. Medical College,
Agra, and others reported inAIR 1995 All
152 (DB) has observed in Para 5 as under:

"........The Principal of S.N. Medical
College, Agra and all other authorities in
the State must know that orders of this
Court are binding on them automatically
and must be faithfully and punctually
complied with, and such authorities cannot
take a stand that they will comply with the
judgment of this court only when they
receive some communication from the State
Govt. In future this court will not tolerate
this kind of attitude from any authority and
all authorities are cautioned against taking
up such attitude in respect of the orders or
judgments of this Court."

(emphasis supplied)

11. In the order dated 30.11.2023, it
has been clearly indicated in Para 7 that in
view of the given circumstances of the
present case, this is a case of admitted
contempt and on such observation of the
Court, the explanation, so given by the
authority by means of an affidavit of
compliance and by the documents so
provided, are insufficient and unacceptable,
therefore, such explanation is rejected. The
unconditional
apology given by
any
authority should not be a mere formality
but the same must be reflected from the
conduct of that authority so his/her/their
conduct must be scrutinized. If the conduct
of said authority is otherwise than the
unconditional apology so given, then such
unconditional apology should be turned
down.

12. Therefore, keeping in a view the
fact that earlier this contempt petition was
dismissed on the affidavit of compliance of
opposite party no. 4 wherein he has
indicated that he has complied with the
order of the Writ Court in its letter and
spirit, thereafter he again flouted the same
order as well as the order of the Contempt
Court
and
while
tendering
his
unconditional apology, he is saying that he
has not deliberately and willfully disobeyed
the order of the Court but has sought
guidelines from the superior authority as to
whether he should make compliance of the
order of Writ Court by making payment of
minimum wages/salary to the daily wagers,
is a clear contempt of the order of Writ
Court dated 09.02.2023 passed in Writ-A
No. 8812 of 2022. Notably, against the
order dated 09.02.2023, no Special appeal
has been filed anywhere, rather the
authority has complied with the order by
filing earlier affidavit of compliance,
therefore, for all practical purposes, the
order dated 09.02.2023 has attained the
finality.

13. Having regard to the aforesaid
facts and circumstances, the opposite party
no. 4, namely, Sri Suresh Kumar, Joint
Director, Horticulture Experiment and
Training Centre, Saharanpur who has
committed
intentional,
deliberate
and
willful contempt of this Court by flouting
the direction being issued vide judgment
and order dated 09.02.2023 passed in writA No. 8812 of 2022 is liable to be punished
under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971.

14. Accordingly, opposite party no. 4,
namely, Sri Suresh Kumar, Joint Director,
Horticulture
Experiment
and
Training
Centre, Saharanpur is hereby punished with
the fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 12 of
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The
aforesaid fine shall be deposited within a
period of one month from today before the
Senior Registrar of this Court.
246 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

15. Let a copy of this order be
intimated
to
the
Principal
Secretary,
Horticulture
Experiment
and
Training
Centre, Saharanpur, U.P. by registry within
three working days for information and
taking
appropriate
steps
strictly
in
accordance with law, if so required.

16. Since the fine is to be deposited
by opposite party no. 4 within a period of
one month from today, therefore, list this
case again on 19.01.2024. On that date, the
officer, who is present today in person,
shall again appear in person and shall
apprise the Court through learned Standing
Counsel as to whether he has deposited the
fine before the Senior Registrar of this
Court or not and if the fine is not deposited,
the specific reason to that effect would be
apprised to the Court.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 246
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 739 of 2022

Bhaiya Lal Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, Nishi Chaudhary

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Vaibhav Kalia

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 143 & 506 - Scheduled Castes
and
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(Dha) -
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
-
Section 161 - Summoning order -
Quashing of - Appellant, manager of
School,
affiliated
to
C.B.S.E
-
On
30.07.2021, C.B.S.E. declared Class XII
results for academic session 2020-21 -
Out of 140 students, 129 passed, 23 were
placed in compartment and 11 failed,
including
son
of
respondent
no.3
-
Aggrieved
by
failure
of
his
son,
respondent no.3 unlawfully entered school
premises,
misbehaved
and
abused
teaching staff - Respondent no.3 lodged
FIR
alleging
that
appellant
and
his
associates offered ₹5,00,000/- to end
protests over students' failure and on
refusal,
threatened
him
-
Appellant
neither abused respondent no.3 by caste
name nor used any caste-based language
in public view - FIR contains no allegation
of such abuse - Magistrate, without
properly considering FIR, evidence or
material
on
record,
took
cognizance
despite respondent's own case indicating
that alleged incident occurred inside his
house without public view - Independent
witnesses denied incident, St.ments of
appellant & ors.recorded by Investigating
Officer ignored - Hence, ingredients of
Section of SC/ST Act, 1989 not satisfied,
no offence made out against appellant -
Impugned set aside, quashed. (Para 3, 4,
6, 36, 46)

Appeal allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Hitesh Verma Vs St. of Uttarakhand reported
in (2020) 10 SCC 710, (Paras 13, 14, 18)

2. Ramesh Chandra Vaishya Vs. St. of U.P. &
anr.; (2023) SCC OnLine SC 668, (Paras 17, 18,
21)

3. Fakhruddin Ahmad Vs St. of Uttranchal & anr.
repored in (2008) 17 SCC 157, (Paras 11 to 15)

4. Ankit Vs St. of U.P. & anr. reported in JIC
2010 (1) Page 432

5. St. of Har. Vs Bhajanlal reported in 1992 SCC
(Crl.) 426

6. Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs St. of Bihar &
ors.reported in (2019) 6 SCC 107