# Ravi Prakash @ Suraj & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 10 ILRA 145
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-09-26
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2867 of 2022
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravi-prakash-suraj-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-49329
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 323, 504 & 506 - Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of
Atrocities)
Act,
1989
-
Sections
3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Sections 14-A(1) & 156(3) -
Quashing of Summoning Order - False
Implication - No Public View - Abuse of
Process -The appellants, Ravi Prakash @ Suraj
and Rajesh Kumar @ Tori, challenged the
summoning order dated 05.09.2022 passed by
the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sitapur, in
Complaint Case No. 47 of 2022 under Sections
323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(Da),
3(1)(Dha) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station
Machrehata, Sitapur, along with the entire
proceedings.

Held: (1) The appeal was allowed, and the
summoning order and proceedings against the
appellants were quashed. (2) The complaint,
initiated via an application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. by respondent no. 2 (Radhey Shyam),
was based on false and baseless allegations
driven by enmity, as supported by a Circle
Officer's report dated 03.01.2022, which found
no evidence of the alleged incident. (3) The
allegations
under
Sections
3(1)(Da)
and
3(1)(Dha) of the SC/ST Act were not applicable,
as the incident did not occur in public view, and
no intent to humiliate based on caste was
established, per Hitesh Verma Vs St. of
Uttarakhand. (4) The IPC offenses were also not
substantiated due to the lack of credible
evidence, as confirmed by the Circle Officer's
report.
(5)
The
appellants,
including
an
Assistant Manager in a multinational company,
were not present at the alleged scene, and
there was no criminal history or independent
evidence to support the prosecution's case. (6)
The trial court failed to appreciate the material
evidence, including the Circle Officer's report,
rendering the summoning order unsustainable.
(7) The High Court, exercising inherent powers
to prevent abuse of process and secure justice,
as guided by R.P. Kapoor Vs St. of Punj., St. of
Har. Vs Bhajanlal, St. of Bihar Vs P.P. Sharma,
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs Mohd.
Saraful Haq, and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.
Ltd. Vs St. of Mah., quashed the proceedings,
finding no prima facie case and bleak chances of
conviction. (8) The court directed verification of
the order's authenticity from the High Court's
website.

Case Law Cited:

## Text

10 All. Ravi Prakash @ Suraj & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.& Anr.
145
Section 8/21 of N.D.P.S. Act); State vs.
Gurudeen and in Crl. Trial No.72 of 2002
(Crime No.18/2002 under Section 8/21
N.D.P.S. Act); State vs. Nanhkau Loniya
both sent from Police Station-G.R.P.
Barabanki, is set aside and reversed and
accused/appellants, namely, Gurudeen and
Nanhkau Loniya are acquitted of the
charges
leveled
against
them.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed. their
personal bond and surety bonds are
canceled and sureties are discharged.

24. Let a copy of this judgment
alongwith the lower court record be sent
immediately to the Trial Court concerned
for necessary compliance.

25. No order as to the costs.
----------
(2023) 10 ILRA 145
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.09.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2867 of 2022

Ravi Prakash @ Suraj & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Lalji Prasad Shukla, Kaushal Kishore Tewari

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Rizwanul Haque Ansari

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 323, 504 & 506 - Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of
Atrocities)
Act,
1989
-
Sections
3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Sections 14-A(1) & 156(3) -
Quashing of Summoning Order - False
Implication - No Public View - Abuse of
Process -The appellants, Ravi Prakash @ Suraj
and Rajesh Kumar @ Tori, challenged the
summoning order dated 05.09.2022 passed by
the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sitapur, in
Complaint Case No. 47 of 2022 under Sections
323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(Da),
3(1)(Dha) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station
Machrehata, Sitapur, along with the entire
proceedings.

Held: (1) The appeal was allowed, and the
summoning order and proceedings against the
appellants were quashed. (2) The complaint,
initiated via an application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. by respondent no. 2 (Radhey Shyam),
was based on false and baseless allegations
driven by enmity, as supported by a Circle
Officer's report dated 03.01.2022, which found
no evidence of the alleged incident. (3) The
allegations
under
Sections
3(1)(Da)
and
3(1)(Dha) of the SC/ST Act were not applicable,
as the incident did not occur in public view, and
no intent to humiliate based on caste was
established, per Hitesh Verma Vs St. of
Uttarakhand. (4) The IPC offenses were also not
substantiated due to the lack of credible
evidence, as confirmed by the Circle Officer's
report.
(5)
The
appellants,
including
an
Assistant Manager in a multinational company,
were not present at the alleged scene, and
there was no criminal history or independent
evidence to support the prosecution's case. (6)
The trial court failed to appreciate the material
evidence, including the Circle Officer's report,
rendering the summoning order unsustainable.
(7) The High Court, exercising inherent powers
to prevent abuse of process and secure justice,
as guided by R.P. Kapoor Vs St. of Punj., St. of
Har. Vs Bhajanlal, St. of Bihar Vs P.P. Sharma,
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs Mohd.
Saraful Haq, and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.
Ltd. Vs St. of Mah., quashed the proceedings,
finding no prima facie case and bleak chances of
conviction. (8) The court directed verification of
the order's authenticity from the High Court's
website.

Case Law Cited:

1. Hitesh Verma Vs St. of Uttarakhand, (2020)
10 SCC 710;
146 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2. R.P. Kapoor Vs St. of Punj., AIR 1960 SC 866;

3. St. of Har. Vs Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426;

4. St. of Bihar Vs P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri)
192;

5. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs Mohd.
Saraful Haq, 2005 SCC (Cri) 283;

6. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs St. of
Mah., AIR 2021 SC 1918;

7. S.W. Palankattkar Vs St. of Bihar, 2002 (44)
ACC 168.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1) This Court vide order dated 25-082023 granted ten days and no more as an
last opportunity to opposite party no. 2 for
filing counter affidavit. Today when the
case is being taken up in revised list then
neither counsel for the opposite party no.-2
is present nor any counter affidavit has
been filed on his behalf. As such this court
is proceedings finally in the interest of
Justice.

2) Heard Shri Kaushal Kishore
Tewari, learned counsel for the appellants
and Shri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned
AGA for the State and perused the entire
record.

3) This criminal appeal has been
preferred by the appellants Ravi Prakash @
Suraj and Rajesh Kumar @ Tori under
Section 14-A (1) of Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST
Act') for quashing the summoning order
dated 05-09-2022, passed by the learned
Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur in
Complaint Case No. 47 of 2022 (Radhey
Shyam vs. Ravi Prakash @ Suraj & others),
under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and
Section 3(1)Da and 3(1) Dha of SC/ST (PA)
Act, P.S. Machrehata, District Sitapur as well
as the entire proceedings of aforesaid
complaint case.

4) It has been argued by the learned
counsel for the appellants that the respondent
No.2 has lodged the complaint case by
making false and baseless allegations. The
complaint case has been got lodged by the
respondent No.2 by moving an application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before Learned
Special Judge S.C./ S.T. Act, Sitapur on 0712-2021 against the appellants and two other
persons.

5) Learned counsel for the appellants
has submitted that the appellants are innocent
and have been falsely implicated in the
present case due to enmity with the
respondent no. 2. The appellants are law
abiding citizens and appellant no. 1 is
Assistant Manager in an multi national
company and on the date of alleged
occurrence appellant no. 1 was in Noida.
Learned counsel for the appellants further
submits that respondent no. 2 was extending
threats to the appellants for implicating them
in false and frivolous cases in order to harass
them.

6) Learned Counsel for the appellants
had placed reliance on report dated 03-012022 submitted by the Circle Officer of P.S. -
Machrehata, District Sitapur in which it has
been stated by Circle Officer that no such
occurrence ever took place and impugned
application
has
been
given
by
the
respondent no.2 by making false and bogus
allegations against the appellants, the said
report dated 03-01-2022 is annexed as
Annexure No 2 in the affidavit.

7) Several other submissions in order
to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations
10 All. Ravi Prakash @ Suraj & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.& Anr.
147
made against the appellants have also been
placed forth before the Court. The
circumstances which, according to the
counsel, led to the false implication of the
accused have also been touched upon at
length. It has been assured on behalf of the
appellants that he is ready to cooperate with
the process of law and shall faithfully make
himself available before the court whenever
required and is also ready to accept all the
conditions which the Court may deem fit to
impose upon him. It has also been pointed
out that the accused are not having any
criminal history.

8) Learned counsel for the appellants
further submitted that the opposite party
no.2 moved an application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. on 07-12-2021, which was
treated as a complaint case by the learned
court below in complete disregard of the
facts. Learned
counsel for the 3appellants has further
submitted that the case lodged under
Section 3(1) Da and 3(1) Dha of S.C./S.T.
Act did not apply against the appellants
because as per the complaint, the incident
does not took place in the public view
and public place. In support of his
argument,
learned
counsel
for
the
appellants has relied upon a judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of
Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710 and
placed reliance upon para 13 and 18 of
the
aforesaid
judgment,
which
are
reproduced hereunder:-

"13. All insults or intimidations
to a person will not be an offence under
the Act unless such insult or intimidation
is on account of victim belonging to
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The
object of the Act is to improve the socioeconomic conditions of the Scheduled
Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they
are denied number of civil rights. Thus,
an offence under the Act would be made
out when a member of the vulnerable
section of the Society is subjected to
indignities, humiliations and harassment.
The assertion of title over the land by
either of the parties is not due to either
the
indignities,
humiliations
or
harassment. Every citizen has a right to
avail their remedies in accordance with
law. Therefore, if the appellant or his
family members have invoked jurisdiction
of the civil court, or that respondent No.2
has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil
court, then the parties are availing their
remedies
in
accordance
with
the
procedure established by law. Such action
is not for the reason that respondent No.2
is member of Scheduled Caste.

18. Therefore, offence under the
Act is not established merely on the fact
that the informant is a member of
Scheduled Caste unless there is an
intention to humiliate a member of
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for
the reason that the victim belongs to such
caste. In the present case, the parties are
litigating over possession of the land. The
allegation of hurling of abuses is against
a person who claims title over the
property. If such person happens to be a
Scheduled Caste, the offence under
Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made
out."

9) Thus, learned counsel for the
appellants submitted that in view of the
judgment
rendered
by
the
Hon'ble
Supreme Court, no offence of S.C./S.T.
Act are applicable even though offence
under the provisions of I.P.C. are also not
applicable. There was no occasion for the
appellants to harass the opposite party no.2
or to use physical force on him. The
148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
summoning order passed by learned court
below is not sustainable in the eyes of law,
therefore, it may be quashed.

10) Learned A.G.A. opposed the
prayer for quashing of the aforesaid
summoning order and submitted that prima
facie offence is made out, however, he is
unable to dispute the contentions raised by
learned counsel for the appellants.

11) After perusing the record in the
light of the submissions made at the bar
and after taking an overall view of all the
facts and circumstances of this case, the
nature of evidence and as per the contents
of the complaint as well as the application
moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and
also the report dated 03-01-2022 submitted
by Circle Officer Machrehata, District
Sitapur, the incident does not appears to
happen, thus, Section 3(1) Da and 3(1) Dha
of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
is not attracted against the appellants as the
incident did not occur in public place and
thus have no public view, even though the
other Sections of I.P.C. are also not
attracted against the appellant in view of
the report dated 03-01-2022 submitted by
Circle Officer of P.S. - Machrehata, District
Sitapur , as such, considering the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Hitesh Verma (Supra), this Court
is of the view that the learned court below
has failed to appreciate the material
available on record. The summoning order
dated 05-09-2022 passed by the court
below is liable to be reversed and set aside
as well as entire proceedings of the
aforesaid case is liable to be quashed.

12) Further the Apex Court has also
laid down the guidelines where the criminal
proceedings
could
be
interfered
and
quashed in exercise of its power by the
High Court in the following cases:-(i) R.P.
Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960
S.C. 866, (ii) State of Haryana Vs.
Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.)426, (iii) State
of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC
(Crl.)192, (iv) Zandu Pharmaceutical
Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and
another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283
and

(v) Neeharika Infrastructure
Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR
2021 SC 1918.

13) From the aforesaid decisions the
Apex Court has settled the legal position
for quashing of the proceedings at the
initial stage. The test to be applied by the
court
is
to
whether
uncontroverted
allegation as made prima facie establishes
the offence and the chances of ultimate
conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is
likely to be served by allowing criminal
proceedings to be continued.

14) 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 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.

15) Accordingly, the appeal is
allowed and in view of the observation
made above, the entire proceedings of
Complaint Case No. 47 of 2022 (Radhey
10 All. Surendra Koli Vs. State through C.B.I.
149
Shyam vs. Ravi Prakash @ Suraj & others),
under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and
Section 3(1)Da and 3(1) Dha of SC/ST
(PA) Act, P.S. Machrehata, District Sitapur
pending in the court of learned Special
Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Sitapur as well as the
impugned
summoning
order
dated
05.09.2022 passed in the aforesaid case is
hereby quashed so far as it relates to the
instant appellants Ravi Prakash @ Suraj
and Rajesh Kumar @ Tori.

16) The party shall file computer
generated copy of such order downloaded
from the official website of High Court
Allahabad or certified copy issued from the
Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

17)

The
concerned
Court/Authority/Official shall verify the
authenticity of such computerized copy of
the order from the official website of High
Court Allahabad
and
shall
make
a
declaration of such verification in writing.
----------
(2023) 10 ILRA 149
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.10.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED AFTAB HUSAIN RIZVI,
J.

Capital Case No. 5183 of 2017
With
Capital Reference No. 10 of 2017

With
Capital Case No. 4404 of 2017
With
Capital Reference No. 10 of 2017

Surendra Koli ...Appellant
Versus
State through C.B.I. ...Respondent
Counsel for the Appellant:
From Jail, Sri Yug Mohit Chaudhary, Ms.
Payoshi Roy, Sri Siddhartha Sharma, Ms.
Mary Punch (Sheeba Jose), Sri Mohd. Kalim

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A., Sri Amit Mishra, Sri Gyan Prakash,
Sri Jitendra Prasad Mishra, Sri Sanjay
Kumar Yadav

Criminal Law- Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 302, 201 - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Section 164 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872
- Section 27 - Appeal against conviction and
death sentence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC
for murder and causing disappearance of
evidence in Nithari Killings case allowed;
conviction and sentence set aside. Held: (1)
Prosecution's case, reliant on accused's extrajudicial confession and recoveries under Section
27 of Evidence Act, unsustainable as recoveries
(skulls, bones) were from an open service lane
not under accused's exclusive control, casting
doubt on his exclusive knowledge (Pancham
Singh v. State of M.P., (2013) 4 SCC 34). (2)
Confession before police and recovery memos
marred
by
inconsistencies;
confessional
statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and
scientific tests (narco-analysis, polygraph) lack
substantive evidentiary value (State (N.C.T. of
Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600).
(3) Absence of forensic evidence (e.g., blood
stains,
human
remains)
inside
accused's
residence weakens prosecution's case. (4)
Alleged motive of accused acting in an
"automaton state" unsupported by conclusive
evidence. (5) Trial court erred in convicting
based on incomplete chain of circumstantial
evidence; prosecution failed to prove guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. (6) Death sentence
unsustainable
due
to
lack
of
conclusive
evidence; conviction set aside (K.K. Velusamy v.
N. Palanisamy, (2011) 11 SCC 275). Accused
acquitted. (Paras 1-5)

Criminal Appeal Allowed; Accused Acquitted.

Case Law Cited:

1. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu,
(2005) 11 SCC 600 (Para 2)