# Ram Paita Kanaujia v. State of U.P. through S.S.P., Varanasi and others

- **Citation:** (2001) 2 ILRA 136
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2001-03-15
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-paita-kanaujia-v-state-of-u-p-through-s-s-p-varanasi-and-others-39832
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

2All] Ram Paita Kanaujia V. State of U.P. through S.S.P., Varanasi and others

136
Tribunal and the High Court have,
therefore gone into error in divesting the
claimants of the compensation payable to
them.

7. In this way, the claimant was
entitled to claim compensation even in the
absence of negligence on the part of
owner or driver of the vehicle.

8. Regarding compensation it was
contended that the Tribunal had doubly
allowed the compensation on same count.
I have gone through the judgement of the
Tribunal and found that compensation has
rightly been allowed on separate counts
which
are
permissible under Motor
Vehicles Act.

There is no force in the appeal and
the appeal in dismissed accordingly.

Stay order dated 27.8.1999 stands
vacated.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 86 75,3$7+, -
7+( +21·%/( 86 75,3$7+, -

&ULPLQDO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

5DP 3DLWD .DQDXMLD &RQVWDEOH 1R
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH
RI
83
WKURXJK
6HQLRU
6XSHULQWHQGHQW RI 3ROLFH 9DUDQDVL DQG
RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 5& 8SDGK\D\
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
$*$
&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD $UWLFOH :ULW E\
3ROLFH
&RQVWDEOH
&KDOOHQJLQJ
WKH ),5
XQGHU VHFWLRQ ,3&),5
VKRZLQJ
SULPD
IDFLH
FDVH

3HWLWLRQ
GLVPLVVHG
+HOG 3DUD DQG
$ ODUJH QXPEHU RI SHWLWLRQV DUH FRPLQJ
XS EHIRUH WKLV &RXUW ZLWK DOOHJDWLRQV
DJDLQVW WKH 3ROLFH WKDW WKH\ DUH EHKDYLQJ
OLNH EDQGLWV WKLHYHV UDSLVW DQG SHWW\
FULPLQDOV
,Q
VLPLODU
&UO
0LVF
ZULW
3HWLWLRQ
1R

RI

0DKHVK
&KDQGUD +G &RQVWDEOH 9 6WDWH GHFLGHG
RQ

DQG
&UO
0LVF
:ULW
3HWLWLRQ 1R RI 5DPD .DQW
0LVUD 9 6WDWH GHFLGHG RQ
ZH FRQGHPQHG WKLV VDG VWDWH RI DIIDLUV
SUHYDLOLQJ LQ RXU FRXQWU\ 7KH ZD\ LQ
ZKLFK D ODUJH QXPEHU RI 3ROLFH SHUVRQQHO
DUH EHKDYLQJ UHPLQGV XV RI WKH GD\V RI
WKH
ODWHU
0XJKDOV
ZKHQ
7KXJV
DQG
3LQGDULV ZHUH ORRWLQJ WKH SXEOLF DQG
WHUURUL]LQJ
WKHP
LQ
PDQ\
ZD\V
7KH
3ROLFH
DUH
VXSSRVHG
WR
SURWHFW
WKH
SHRSOH DQG QRW WR UDSH EODFN PDLO RU ORRW
WKHP :H GR QRW PHDQ WR VD\ WKDW WKHUH
DUH QR JRRG SROLFHPDQ EXW LW VHHPV WKDW
WKH\ DUH LQ WKH PLQRULW\ 7KH PDMRULW\ RI
WKH SROLFHPHQ DUH QRW EHKDYLQJ SURSHUO\
DW DOO 7KH 'LUHFWRU *HQHUDO RI 3ROLFH
PXVW ORRN LQWR WKLV DQG SDVV DSSURSULDWH
RUGHUV WR FKHFN WKHVH NLQGV RI FULPLQDO
DFWLYLWLHV RI SROLFHPHQ :H DUH OLYLQJ LQ D
FLYLOLVHG VRFLHW\ ZKHUH WKH UXOH RI ODZ
SUHYDLOV DQG LW LV KLJK WLPH WKDW WKH
SROLFH DOVR VWDUW EHKDYLQJ LQ D FLYLOLVHG
PDQQHU
6LQFH WKH DOOHJDWLRQ LQ WKH ),5 PDNH RXW
D SULPD IDFLH FDVH ZH FDQQRW LQWHUIHUH
7KH SHWLWLRQ LV GLVPLVVHG +RZHYHU WKH
REVHUYDWLRQV LQ WKLV MXGJHPHQW ZLOO QRW
LQIOXHQFH
WKH
&RXUW
KHDULQJ
WKH
SHWLWLRQHU
V EDLO DSSOLFDWLRQ RU WUDLO

By the Court

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitione.
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001

137

The petitioner has challenged the
impugned
FIR
dated
15.03.2001
(Annexure-1 to the petition) relating to
Case Crime No. 33 of 2001 under section
376/452/506 IPC, Police Station Sarnath,
dictrict Varanasi. The FIR reads as
follows :-

‘ »‹ · 1⁄4

J ©· [ O [ Y‚ )

‘ …[ O ‹ … K ‘ ©

· F »Q‚

 ¡[ ‹ »Q[ F¿ ¡% ( _ £O [ ©  Q»‹ © ^ M © ^ [[ ©

o o … 9 | … 2 · } …E^ … O [

 ‘ …[ O ¡9 o

‹ … K ‘ © % ( © …F[ » ‹ o © F± 0 L ¡Q[ % (

% ( » | »… · 1⁄4 L ©[ } 9 » O [ ‘ …[ O ¡‘ ^ F © ¡9 ‘ % ( »

o »0 % ([[ ¿ ¡9 ‚ % (FL » FÀ  … } ^ ©% (… F O · 1⁄4 % (@™@

 ¡o ‚ » F‚ » 3 … % ( Q…‹ 9 L »E

% (… _ £O [ © % (» 3 … · 1⁄4

3 ‘ 0 ‚ ¿… 9 } …Q‘L © % (@™@» % (» } o ^ … _ £O [ © % (»

‘ O } o L% ( … ¡% (‚ _ £O [ © % (» ^ ‘ ‘ % ( © Q » 8 »@ ©

} F[ » | © ‘ »L © O © ¡9 [ % ( [ · …»-  0‚ …F ‘ o

‹ % (oo »  ‘ L

‘ o | © 9 0 0 ‚ © O © % 'L

 ¡‘ ^ F © [ % ( » | © % (@™@ ¡Q- % (… E… [ Y · % ( [

 ¿… ¡6 oo [ » ‘ » … »% (
 ‘ © ‘ · ‚ _ £O [ © % ( | ž

  »% ( | © ^ [ © 6 ‚ % ( © Q±% ( [ ‘ » 3 … ‹ ^ ‘ ‚

O 3 … · 1⁄4 F » …F ©

 ‹ 9 % ( » ‘ [ % (… [Q… ‚ L »

 ‘ % ( » | © · o ¡9 · % ([[ ¿ ¡9 ‚ % (@™@ ¡Q- % (… } F…

| 0 ¡Q‚ ¿… } o L% ( … % (…[ » % (» } Q _ £O [ © % ( »

Y · % ( © Q»L » F‚ » 6 o 0 ‚ ¡% ( 0 … L · ¡6 oo »0 ©

 ¿… O

[ » · 1⁄4 ¡…^ »@ž % (… »0 © L » L ·F …» ‘ ¡FL ^ ±…» ^ ¡…‹ …

% ( » 9 [ ‘ » · … Q1⁄40 »
 3 @[ % (» ‘ · ‚ _ £O [ © % (» 3 …

· 1⁄4 ¡E} … © 9 o …F © O © ¡9 ‘ % ( © … » [ © · 1⁄4 _ £O [ © $‹ 

 ‘ % (» Q »[ 1⁄4 8 »@ © } F[ 1⁄4 $‹  | ž  »%

 ( [ » · o ¡9 ·

 ¡‘ ^ F © % ([[ ¿ ¡9 ‚ % ( » Q»- ‹ ^ F6 [
 · o ¡9 ·

 ¡‘ ^ F © % ([[ ¿ ¡9 ‚ % ( © Y · % ( © % ( © ‹ 9 F ‘ » _ £O [ ©

‘ · ‚ % (» [Q… ¡…^ »@ž Q9 ž [ F a % (… ‘ % ( ©

 L J ©· [ 9 © ‘ » _ O ž[ F¿ ¡% (

3 @[ % (»

‘ ·} [Y
· 1⁄4
 ¡…^ »@ž
Q9 ž
% (…
· o ¡9 · [
 ¡‘ ^ F ©

% ([[ ¿ ¡9 ‚ % (» ¡- o ^ ( ¡6 L % ( ‚ ž‹ F © % (…[ » % ( ©

% ¶(^ % (…1⁄4 _ £O [ ©  Q»‹ ©

 ¡Q[ % (

o »- % (
 L o
 ¢‘ F
‘ …[ O

‹ … K ‘ ©

2. A perusal of the FIR shows that
the allegations therein are that on
10.03.2001 at 3.00 a.m. the petitioner who
is a Police Constable came to the house of
the first informant in a drunken state with
a Katta in his hand, broke the door of the
house of the first informant and entered
the house and raped the first informant at
the Katta point. The two sisters of the first
informant namely Rekha aged about 11
years and Kallo aged about 7 years who
were sleeping there woke up, and the
petitioner threatened both the girls with
his Katta. The first informant's brother
Ashok came there and he was also
threatened by the petitioner by showing
him the Katta. The petitioner then
threatened the first informant saying that
if she reported the matter then her entire
family will be killed.

3. A large number of petitions are
coming up before this Court with
allegations against the Police that they are
behaving like bandits, thieves, rapist and
petty criminals. In similar Crl. Misc. Writ
Petition No. 1629 of 2001 (Mahesh
Chandra, Hd. Constable V. State) decided
on 26.03.2001 and Crl. Misc. Writ
Petition No. 894 of 2001 (Rama Kant
Misra V. State) decided on 01/03/2001 we
condemned this sad state of affairs
prevailing in our country. The way in
which a large number of Police personnel
are behaving reminds us of the days of the
later Mughals when Thugs and Pindaris
were looting the public and terrorizing
them in many ways. The Police are
supposed to protect the people and not to
rape, black mail or loot them. We do not
mean to say that there are no good
policemen but it seems that they are in the
2All] Ram Babu Jain V. Virendra Kumar Gupta and others

138
minority. The majority of the policemen
are not behaving properly at all. The
Director General of Police must look into
this and pass appropriate orders to check
these kinds of criminal activities of
policemen. We are living in a civilised
society where the rule of law prevails and
it is high time that the police also start
behaving in a civilized manner.

4. Since the allegation in the FIR
make out a prima facie case we cannot
interfere.
The
petition is dismissed.
However,
the
observations
in
this
judgement will not influence the Court
hearing the petitioner's bail application or
trial.

5. Let the Registrar General of this
Court send a copy of this judgement to the
Director General of Police, U.P. who will
issue stern directions to all police
personnel that strong action will be taken
against those policemen committing such
crimes.

5(9,6,21$/ -85,6',&7,21
5(9,6,21$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( %. 5$7+, -
7+( +21·%/( %. 5$7+, -

&LYLO 5HYLVLRQ 1R RI

5DP %DEX -DLQ
«'HIHQGDQW5HYLVLRQLVW
9HUVXV
9LUHQGUD .XPDU *XSWD DQG RWKHUV
«3ODLQWLII5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HYLVLRQLVW
6KUL 0DQRM 0LVUD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6KUL $. *XSWD

$ 83 8UEDQ %XLOGLQJV 5HJXODWLRQ RI
OHWWLQJ 5HQW DQG (YLFWLRQ $FW
6HFWLRQ

([SODQDWLRQ

D
±
$SSOLFDELOLW\
+HOG ± 3DUD

$V DJDLQVW WKLV WKH ILUVW DVVHVVPHQW RI
WKH EXLOGLQJ LQ TXHVWLRQ ZDV ILOHG E\ WKH
UHVSRQGHQWV ZKLFK VKRZV WKDW WKH VKRS
ZDV ILUVW DVVHVVHG WR WKH WD[ RQ
7KHUHIRUH DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH ([SODQDWLRQ
PHQWLRQHG DERYH IRU WKH SXUSRVHV RI WKLV
$FW
WKH
GDWH
RI
FRPSOHWLRQ
RI
WKH
FRQVWUXFWLRQV VKDOO EH GHHPHG WR EH

7KH
VXLW
KDYLQJ
EHHQ
ILOHG
ZLWKLQ WHQ \HDUV LH RQ 83 $FW
1R RI GRHV QRW DSSO\ WR WKH
SUHPLVHV LQ VXLW 7KHUHIRUH WKH FRXUW
EHORZ KDV ULJKWO\ KHOG WKDW 83 $FW 1R

RI

GRHV
QRW
DSSO\
WR
WKH
SUHPLVHV LQ VXLW 7KHUH LV QR UHDVRQ WR
LQWHUIHUH LQ WKH ILQGLQJ
% 1RWLFH ± RI WHUPLQDWLRQ RI 7HQDQF\ ±
9DOLGLW\
+HOG ± 3DUD
,W KDV QRW EHHQ SOHDGHG LQ WKH :6 WKDW
WKH QRWLFH RI WHUPLQDWLRQ RI WHQDQF\ LV
QRW RI WKH HQWLUH SUHPLVHV ,W LV DOVR QRW
VSHFLILFDOO\ SOHDGHG LQ WKH :6 DV WR
ZKLFK SRUWLRQ RI WKH SUHPLVHV WKH QRWLFH
GRHV QRW UHODWH RU LW UHODWHV WR VRPH
SRUWLRQ
QRW
LQ
WKH
WHQDQF\
RI
WKH
UHYLVLRQLVW 7KH QRWLFH FDQQRW EH KHOG WR
EH LQYDOLG RQ WKLV JURXQG

By the Court

1. This is a revision under Section
25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts
Act, 1887 against the judgment and
decree dated 25.1.2001 passed by the
J.S.C.C./ IV Additional District Judge,
Aligarh in S.C.C. Suit No. 38 of 1991.

2. The premises in dispute is shop
no. 1786-B situated within the limits of