Criminal Proceedings Against Politician Upheld: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea to Quash Case
The case of Ramveer Upadhyay & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. revolved around allegations under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The petitioners sought to quash criminal proceedings initiated against them, alleging political vendetta as the motive behind the complaint. However, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the High Court’s decision rejecting the petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), thereby allowing the trial to proceed.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, including politician Ramveer Upadhyay, were accused of attempting to kidnap and abuse the complainant, a member of the Scheduled Caste community. The complaint stated that Upadhyay, along with his associates, had used caste-based slurs and attempted to forcibly abduct the complainant.
The case had a political backdrop, with allegations that it was filed at the behest of a rival political figure, Devendra Aggarwal. The petitioners argued that similar allegations had been raised earlier and dismissed after investigation, suggesting a pattern of false complaints aimed at tarnishing their reputation.
Petitioners’ Arguments
Senior advocate Mr. Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the case was a clear example of political vendetta. He contended:
“Complaint Case No.19/2018 patently a case of malicious prosecution which stemmed from political rivalry and was in gross abuse of the process of Court.”
He further emphasized that the Additional District and Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case, arguing:
“Only the Special Judge under the Atrocities Act was competent to pass an order for issuance of summons. The order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Hathras being without jurisdiction the High Court should have quashed the same in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.”
Respondents’ Arguments
On the other hand, the respondents, represented by Mr. Siddharth Dave, argued that the allegations in the complaint were serious and required judicial scrutiny. He cited a precedent where the Supreme Court had ruled that even a Magistrate could take cognizance of offenses under the Atrocities Act before committing the case to a Special Court.
“The allegations in the Complaint Case No.19/2018, if established, could result in conviction under the relevant sub-sections of Section 3(1) of the Atrocities Act.”
Furthermore, the respondents highlighted that while political rivalry might exist, it did not invalidate criminal proceedings if the allegations made out a prima facie case.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Indira Banerjee and A.S. Bopanna, dismissed the special leave petition and upheld the High Court’s decision. The Court reaffirmed that cases should not be quashed merely on the ground of political motivation if a prima facie case is established.
“It is a well-established proposition of law that a criminal prosecution, if otherwise justified and based upon adequate evidence, does not become vitiated on account of mala fides or political vendetta of the first informant or complainant.”
The Court cited multiple precedents, emphasizing that the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases.
Final Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the plea to quash the criminal proceedings, allowing the trial to continue. However, considering the poor health of the petitioner, the Court noted:
“The Trial Court may consider exempting the personal appearance of the Petitioner No.1, if such an application is made to the Trial Court.”
Conclusion
This judgment underscores that courts will not interfere in criminal proceedings unless there is a clear abuse of process or lack of prima facie evidence. The ruling ensures that cases under the Atrocities Act are pursued diligently, while also acknowledging concerns regarding political misuse. The matter will now proceed to trial, where evidence will determine the final outcome.
Petitioner Name: Ramveer Upadhyay & Anr..Respondent Name: State of U.P. & Anr..Judgment By: Justice Indira Banerjee, Justice A.S. Bopanna.Place Of Incident: Hathras, Uttar Pradesh.Judgment Date: 20-04-2022.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: ramveer-upadhyay-&-a-vs-state-of-u.p.-&-anr.-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-20-04-2022.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in SC/ST Act Case
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by Indira Banerjee
See all petitions in Judgment by A. S. Bopanna
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2022
See all petitions in 2022 judgments
See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
