OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Harish Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Bhuval Vishwakarma, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Vikash Krishna Murti, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

(2.) The applicants herein has filed the present application us 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding against the charge sheet 27/6/2023, cognizance order dtd. 23/5/2024 passed by learned Special Judge SCST Act, Gorakhpur as well as entire proceeding of Session Case No. 8042024 (State Vs. Om Prakash and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 2602023, Under Ss. 323, 504 I.P.C. as well as Sec. 3(1) (r)(s) and sec. 3(2) 5A SCST Act, Police Station- Pipiganj, District- Gorakhpur, pending in the learned Special Judge SCST Act, Gorakhpur.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that a first information report stood lodged against the applicants and another on 20/6/2023 at 15.41 hours, under Ss. 323, 504, 367 of the IPC and read with Sec. 3(2)(v) of the S.C.S.T. Act being No.0260 relatable to the commission of the offence on 18/6/2023 when the opposite party no.2 had gone to the house of Ramharakh Prajapati and when he was sitting then the applicants who are three in number along with other accused barged in their house and thereafter administered beating pursuant whereto opposite party no.2, his son Amit and Chandrashekhar's mother in whose house they were at that time stationed sustained injury. He further submits that so far as the injury of the opposite party no.2, informant Ram Singh is concerned, it was found to be simple and as regards Amit the injury no.5 was sent for radiological examination but nothing was found. He also submits that even with relation to the incident of the same day, dtd. 20/6/2023, FIR No.0261 stood lodged against the opposite party no.2 and his son along with three and others being FIR No.261, under Ss. 147, 323, 506 and 307 of the IPC wherein injuries were sustained by the applicants faction. He while inviting attention towards paragraph no.19 has sought to submit that one Ashok Kumar Jaiswal, who is the nephew of the applicants no. 1 and 2, son of the Bhanu Pratap Jaiswal in the year 2002 had lodged complaint pursuant whereto inquiry was conducted against the Pradhan, Rajesh and Secretary who happens to be of the opposite party no.2 faction which became the motivating factor for inflicting criminality. He next submits that the applicants are innocent.