SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(UK) 254

RAVINDRA MAITHANI
Sandeep Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate, Tajhar Qayyum, Advocate, Pratiroop Pandey, Advocate

JUDGMENT

Ravindra Maithani, J. - Petitioners seek quashing of an FIR No. 2 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 436 IPC and 3 (1) (X) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act'), Patwari Circle Ajmer Walla-4, District Pauri Garhwal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

3. According to the FIR the petitioner Sandeep Singh abused and set the cowshed/stable of the informant ablaze, he also pelted stones on the informant and her son Ajay Kumar; he dragged the informant, due to which, the informant sustained injuries on her knees; the petitioner Sandeep Singh also abused the informant with caste colour remarks. Earlier also, the petitioner Sandeep Singh had done such acts, which were subsequently compromised. At the end of the report, it is also recorded that the petitioner Mahesh Kumar was also with the petitioner Sandeep.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that FIR is false; there is no date and time mentioned in it; petitioner Mahesh belongs to the scheduled caste category, therefore, offences under the Act cannot be made out against him; a place for horses and cow was set to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top