# Pintu Singh @ Rana Pratap Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 662
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-10
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 7411 of 2018
- **Bench:** Vikram D. Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pintu-singh-rana-pratap-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-51940
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Law-Criminal
Procedure
Code,1973-Section 482-Indian Penal Code,
1860-Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 &
3(1)(r) - SC/ST Act,. 1989-challenge tochargsheet-accused person entered into
the house of informant and made caste
based remark and assaulted-in the present
case the offence is not committed in public
view nor the offence has been committed
at public place-the statement of the
5 All. Pintu Singh @ Rana Pratap Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
663
informant discloses that any member of the
public was present and the incident
occurred-Thus, the provision of section
3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act would not be
attracted-proceedings
in
respect
of
offence under SC/ST Act is quashed and
other offences proceedings may go on
(Para 1 to 11)

The application is partly allowed. (E-6)

## Text

662 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

20. In S.W. Palankattkar & others Vs.
State of Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC 168, it has
been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that
quashing of the criminal proceedings is an
exception than a rule. The inherent powers
of the High Court itself envisages three
circumstances under which the inherent
jurisdiction may be exercised:-(i) to give
effect an order under the Code, (ii) to
prevent abuse of the process of the court ;
(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
The power of High Court is very wide but
should be exercised very cautiously to do
real and substantial justice for which the
court alone exists.

21. Thus, in view of the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court and in light of
the observations and discussions made
above and keeping view the facts and
circumstances of the case, and from the
perusal of the record, the impugned charge
sheet dated 24.12.2017 submitted in Case
Crime No.487/2017 before the Court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow under
Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice Care and
Protection of Children Act, 2015 and
summoning order dated 13.09.2018 passed
by Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Lucknow in Criminal Case No.54326/2018
whereby cognizance has been taken and the
applicant has been summoned under Section
370(5) I.P.C. and Section 79 of Juvenile
Justice Care and Protection of Children Act,
2015 and bailable warrant dated 15.03.2019
passed in the aforesaid case against the
applicant.

22. Accordingly, the impugned charge
sheet dated 24.12.2017 submitted in Case
Crime No.487/2017 before the Court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow under
Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice Care and
Protection of Children Act, 2015 and
summoning order dated 13.09.2018 passed
by Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Lucknow in Criminal Case No.54326/2018
whereby cognizance has been taken and the
applicant has been summoned under Section
370(5) I.P.C. and Section 79 of Juvenile
Justice Care and Protection of Children Act,
2015 and bailable warrant dated 15.03.2019
passed in the aforesaid case against the
applicant are hereby set aside and reversed.

23. For the reasons discussed above,
the instant application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is allowed in respect of the instant
applicant, namely-Sagar Jotwani.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 662
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 7411 of 2018

Pintu Singh @ Rana Pratap Singh & Ors.
 ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sri Virendra Pratap
Pal

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Nanhe Lal Tripathi, Sri Rakesh
Singh Yadava

A.
Criminal
Law-Criminal
Procedure
Code,1973-Section 482-Indian Penal Code,
1860-Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 &
3(1)(r) - SC/ST Act,. 1989-challenge tochargsheet-accused person entered into
the house of informant and made caste
based remark and assaulted-in the present
case the offence is not committed in public
view nor the offence has been committed
at public place-the statement of the
5 All. Pintu Singh @ Rana Pratap Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
663
informant discloses that any member of the
public was present and the incident
occurred-Thus, the provision of section
3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act would not be
attracted-proceedings
in
respect
of
offence under SC/ST Act is quashed and
other offences proceedings may go on
(Para 1 to 11)

The application is partly allowed. (E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikram D.
Chauhan, J.)

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants and learned AGA for the State.
No one is present on behalf of the opposite
party no. 2.

3. This application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants for
quashing the S.St. No. 36 of 2018 (State
Versus Arun Singh and others) Case Crime
No. 447 of 2017, under sections 147, 452,
323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1)(r) SC/ST Act,
Police Station Nagara, District Ballia,
pending in the court of Additional Sessions
Judge, Court No. 2, Ballia as well as charge
sheet dated 03.01.2018 arising out of Case
Crime No. 447 of 2017, under sections 147,
452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1)(r) SC/ST
Act, Police Station Nagara, District Ballia.

4. At the very outset, learned counsel
for the applicants submits that the applicants
are pressing 482 application in respect of the
offence under section SC/ST Act. In respect
of the other offences the applicants are not
putting any challenge to the charge sheet at
this stage.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for
the applicants that initially an F.I.R. was
lodged on 15.11.2017 under sections 147,
452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1)(r) of
SC/ST Act at Police Station Nagara, District
Ballia with the allegations that the
nominated accused persons who are seven in
number including the applicants have
entered into the house of the informant and
have stated caste based remark and have also
assaulted the informant and his family
members.
Learned
counsel
for
the
applicants submits that as per F.I.R. it is
alleged that the accused persons have
entered into the house of the informant and
thereafter have made caste based remark. On
the aforesaid basis, the applicants are
proceeded under section 3(1)(r) of the
SC/ST Act for an offence intentionally
insulting or intimidating with intent to
humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or
a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public
view.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants
submits that the offence was committed in
the house of the informant which is not the
public place nor the same was in the public
view. In this respect, learned counsel for the
applicants has drawn the attention of this
Court to the site plan annexued alongwith
the supplementary affidavit as well as the
statement of the informant recorded under
section 161 Cr.P.C. He submits that once the
words uttered was not in public view nor it
was in public place then provisions of
section 3(1) (r) of SC/ST Act would not be
attracted.

7. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the
482 application, however, he could not
dispute the fact that the incident is alleged to
have occurred in the house of the informant.
He could not further dispute the fact that the
incident has not occurred in public view.

8. It is to be seen that in the present
case as per prosecution case it is alleged that
664 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the accused persons including the applicants
have entered into the house of the informant
and have stated caste based remark and have
assaulted. The present 482 application is
only confined to the allegations under
section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act. The site
plan filed by the learned counsel for the
applicants would indicate that the place of
incident is the house of the informant which
is not a public place or public view. A
perusal of the statement of the informant
under section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as the
F.I.R. would further demonstrate that there
was no member of the public in the house
where the alleged incident is said to have
been taken place. As per the provision of
Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST Act is quoted
herein below:

"Section
3(1)(r)
intentionally
insults or intimidates with intent to
humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or
a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public
view."

9. One of the essential ingredients for
an offence under section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST
Act is that the offence ought to have been
committed in public view.

10. In the present case, the offence is
not committed in public view nor the
offence has been committed at public place.
In the statement of the informant it has not
been stated that any member of the public
was present and the incident has occurred.
Once the offence has not taken place in
public view the provisions of section 3(1)(r)
of the SC/ST Act would not be attracted and
as such the same cannot be proceeded with.

11. In view of the facts and
circumstances, the present 482 application is
partly allowed. The Criminal proceedings
against the applicants in Case Crime No.
447 of 2017 in respect of offence under
sections 3(1)(r) SC/ST Act is hereby
quashed. However, in respect of other
offences the proceedings may go on and be
brought to its logical conclusion, in
accordance with law.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 664
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 10290 of 2019

Rajkumar ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri R.V. Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Ashutosh Gupta, Sri Ashutosh
Sharma, Sri Gyan Prakash Verma

A. Criminal Law-Criminal Procedure Code,
1973-Sections 482 & 125-application for
maintenance filed by wife and daughter
which
was
dismissed
for
want
of
prosecution-recall was filed which was
allowed by the court below-The applicant
challenged the impugned order stating
that the same cannot be recalled or
modified in view of the section 362 CrPcThe apex court considered in the case of
Sanjeev kapoor that the proceeding of
section 125 crpc is quasi criminal in nature
and observed that bar of section 362 Crpc
does not apply-Order passed u/s 125 CrPc
may be final or interim, can be recalled or
altered u/s 127 CrPC-a bar of section 362
CrPC is not applicable in such cases.(Para 1
to 17)

The application is rejected. (E-6)