URMILA SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. The present appeal has been filed with a prayer to allow the appeal as well as to set aside the judgement and order dtd. 22/8/2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lucknow in F.I.R. No.69 of 2021, under Ss. 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sec. 3(1)(Da)(Dha) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Krishna Nagar, District Lucknow. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant was asked to vacate the house in which he was living on rent of Rs.5,000.00 per month. The informant received the order for vacation from the officer concerned. As per the order, one third portion was allotted to the appellant, wherein she was living with her family. Another one third portion was grabbed by the appellant illegally. The complainant asked the appellant to pay the amount of Rs.7,02,000.00 through a legal notice, however, the appellant abused the complainant with caste abusive languages. On the date of incident, when the complainant was watering the plants, the accused persons started assaulting the complainant as well as his wife and had abused them in caste abusive languages.

(2.) As per the affidavit filed in support of the appeal, the contention of the appellant is that the entire prosecution story is false and fabricated. No case under the Ss. of 3(1)(Da)(Dha) of S.C./S.T. Act is attracted against the appellant. As per the averment made in the affidavit, the incident is alleged to have taken place inside the house i.e. inside the boundary wall of house and garden, which is neither a public place nor there was any public view and the instant appellant was not present at the time of the alleged incident. It has also been contended that even the offence under the provisions of I.P.C. is also not attracted against the appellant as there is no injury found on the person of the victim and even medical report is also not available. Thus, the entire prosecution story appears to be false and lodged with malafide intention to implicate the entire family of the appellant, who is a lady. Her further averment is that by means of the impugned order dtd. 22/8/2023, the application seeking anticipatory bail by the present appellant came to be rejected by learned trial Court on the ground that entertaining such application for anticipatory bail is specifically barred and excluded by virtue of Sec. 18 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1989'). Being germane to the present controversy, Sec. 18 of SC/ST Act is quoted herein below :

(3.) Her further averment is that the aforesaid impugned order dtd. 22/8/2023 is patently illegal insofar as the same has been passed without considering the law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India and Other; (2020) 4 SCC 727 and judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gopal Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and Others; Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.16343 of 2020. Her further averment is that the incident does not took place in the public view and public place, therefore, she may be given benefit of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710, wherein in para 13 and 18, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has opined as under:-