Allahabad High Court
Rinku Jaiswal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 September, 2024
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:157367 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7392 of 2024 Appellant :- Rinku Jaiswal Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Akash Yadav,Jai Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Parvat Singh,Sarita Kumari Maurya Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri Akash Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Sarita Kumari Maurya, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. Instant appeal has been preferred for challenging the order dated 09.06.2023 passed by Special Judge (SC/S/T Act), Kaushambi in Complaint Case No. 108 of 2021 (Mukari Devi Vs. Shiv Prasad Jaiswal and Others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3(2)5-Ka and 3(1)dha of SC/ST Act, Police Station Saini, District Kaushambi.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that regarding some dispute over the demarcation of plots pertains to appellant and opposite party no. 2 F.I.R. had already been lodged by the In charge, Revenue Inspector and other Revenue Officials on dated 23.11.2021 regarding incidence of same date i.e. 23.11.2021 at about 3:00 p.m wherein opposite party no. 2 has been implicated as accused no. 1 in counter blast of same complaint preferred on dated 26.10.2021 indicating the incident dated 22.10.2021 wherein appellant has been summoned vide order dated 09.06.2023, cognizance of offence has been taken up by learned court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kaushambi in pursuance of sections 323, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3(2)5-Ka and 3(1)dha of SC/ST Act. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that no such incident as narrated in complaint has ever been occurred, since the entire narration has available is false, fabricated and concocted. Since on the date of the incident i.e. on 22.10.2021 appellant was available at Sonepat, Haryana and rendering his duty before Central Reserve Police Force as Head Constable.
4. For substantiating the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant sought attention of the Court over the leave-cum-duty certificate and attendance register dated 22.10.2021 issued by Deputy Commandant (Admn). Group Centre, C.R.P.F. Sonepat which is appended as Annexure No. 7 to the affidavit in support of appeal.
5. Per contra, Ms. Sarita Kumari Maurya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 prays only for filing counter affidavit and no other argument has been raised in support of order dated 09.06.2023. At the same time she never rebutted any of the stand taken up by learned counsel for the appellant.
6. In view of the aforementioned fact and circumstances, considering the plea of alibi which is un-doubtful since certificate issued by Deputy Commandant (Admn). Group Centre, C.R.P.F. Sonepat alongwith the attendance register wherein name of the appellant is crystal clear mentioned on the attendance register dated 22.10.2021 it is almost impossible over appellant to arrive at Kaushambi after completion his duty on the same date.
7. Entire proceeding initiated in pursuance of Complaint Case No. 108 of 2021 (Mukari Devi Vs. Shiv Prasad Jaiswal and Others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3(2)5-Ka and 3(1)dha of SC/ST Act, Police Station Saini, District Kaushambi is hereby quashed and set aside.
8. Appeal stands allowed accordingly.
Order Date :- 25.9.2024 Vikram