RAM KRIPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

(2.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He further submitted that the applicant was the Sub Inspector in Police Department and he retired in the year 2006. It is further submitted that in the year 2002 the first informant along with other coaccused were challaned under Section 4/10 of the Uttar Pradesh Forest Conservation Act and a criminal case was registered against all the accused persons. He further submitted that the complaint was filed by the first informant Chhotey Lal Nirmal under Sections 384, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3(1)(10) S.C./S.T. Act against the applicant wherein it was alleged that the Mango trees belonged to Shyam Lal and the said trees were cut by him after getting due permission from the Forest Department, however, despite the said permission the applicant challaned him. Shyam Lal in the complaint inter-alia alleged that on 7.8.2002 the applicant and the Constable Ajeet Singh had threatened him and extracted Rs. 4,000/- for filing final report in the matter. He further submitted that the C.J.M., Kaushambi by order dated 29.3.2003 issued summoning order only under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C. but no cognizance was taken under Section 384 I.P.C. and 3 (1) (10) S.C./S.T. Act. It is further submitted that the the first informant concealing this vital fact that a criminal complaint is already pending before the concerned court made a representation before the Human Right Commission, New Delhi that no action was taken under Section 384 I.P.C. and 3 (1) (10) S.C./S.T. Act and the Human Right Commission, New Delhi directed the State Government to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation to the first informant and thereupon the State Government issued a notice to the informant for recovery of Rs. 20,000/- from him, however, the said recovery order has been stayed by this Court on 15.11.2010. It is further submitted that in the meanwhile C.B.-C.I.D. enquriy was instituted in the matter and the impugned F.I.R. have been lodged against the applicant.

(3.) It has been submitted that the matter relates to the year 2002 and the present prosecution has been instituted maliciously just to harass, victimise and black mail the applicant. He further submitted that there is there is a material contradiction in the FIR and in complaint filed against the applicant. He further submitted that the applicant has never demanded any bribe nor extorted money from the informant. He further submitted that the applicant was a responsible Govt. Servant who retired in the year 2006, and is aged about 62 years and is suffering from many diseases. He further submits that the applicant has got no criminal history to his credit and there is no chance of his fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence, and is in jail since 15.1.2011.