In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has quashed the charge sheet, cognizance order, and summoning order in a case involving Praveen Kumar Singh and others against the State of Uttar Pradesh and Dharmendra Singh, the husband of a village Pradhan. The court, presided over by Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, imposed a fine of โน50,000 on Dharmendra Singh for misleading the investigation and disrupting official proceedings.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a complaint filed by Praveen Kumar Singh, a newly enrolled advocate and resident of Pahadi Kala village, against the village Pradhan for alleged irregularities. Singh’s complaint led to an official inquiry by the District Magistrate. During an inspection of a pond on June 22, 2023, a confrontation occurred, resulting in two First Information Reports (FIRs) being filed.
The first FIR (Case Crime No. 0139 of 2023) was lodged by Praveen Kumar Singh against Dharmendra Singh and others for offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 323, 504, and 506. Conversely, Dharmendra Singh filed a cross-FIR (Case Crime No. 0140 of 2023) against Singh and his associates for offenses under Sections 323, 504, and 506 IPC.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issues revolved around:
– The validity of the charges filed in the cross-FIR.
– The influence and interference of Dharmendra Singh, a “Pradhanpati,” in the official duties of the elected woman Pradhan.
– The failure of the investigating officers to record statements from government officials present during the incident.
Court’s Decision
After hearing arguments from Praveen Kumar Singh, who appeared in person, and the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) for the State, the court noted several discrepancies and procedural lapses in the investigation. Key observations from the court included:
– The investigating officers did not record statements from the government officials present during the inspection, which was a critical oversight.
– The medical examination report of Dharmendra Singh, which showed a nasal bone fracture, was conducted five days after the incident and did not correlate with the alleged occurrence date.
– The court emphasized the unauthorized role of “Pradhanpati” in the functioning of the village Panchayat, referencing its previous judgment in Gaon Sabha vs. State of U.P. (2023:AHC:224233), which condemned such practices.
Justice Shamshery remarked, “The term ‘Pradhanpati’ is a very popular and widely used term in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Despite being an unauthorized authority, ‘Pradhanpati’ usually undertakes the work of a woman Pradhan, i.e., his wife. This unauthorized interference frustrates the objective of women empowerment and the purpose of providing specific reservations to women.”
Also Read
Important Observations
In conclusion, the court quashed the charge sheet No. 162 of 2023, cognizance order dated December 8, 2023, and summoning order dated January 29, 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 0140 of 2023. The court imposed a fine of โน50,000 on Dharmendra Singh for his misleading actions and influence over the investigation.
