LexRAJEEV KUMAR UPADHYAY versus SRIKANT UPADHYAY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1122 : 2024 INSC 1008 Rajeev Kumar Upadhyay v. Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 4831 of 2024) 19 December 2024 [C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration The victim was subjected to grave accusations and was also disrobed and assaulted in public. The Court take this as an opportunity to refer and reaffirm the commitment to the ideals of equality and justice for all. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.341, 323, 354, 354B, 379, 504, 506, 149 – Witch (Daain) Act – ss.3 and 4 – Victim was accused of witchcraft – She abused physically & verbally and thereafter disrobed – FIR was registered against 13 accused persons – Trial Court took cognizance – Accused persons sought quashing of FIR u/s.482 CrPC – The High Court stayed the proceedings during pendency of the said petition – Complainant aggrieved by the said order approached the Supreme Court: Held: During the hearing, it was informed that petition seeking quashing of the cognizance was withdrawn – This case does not fall under 'ordinary circumstances’, the FIR, shows that the victim, whose name is redacted for the purposes of maintaining the privacy of the said individual, was subjected to grave accusations and also disrobed and assaulted in public, which undoubtedly is an affront to her dignity – Acts committed have shaken the conscience of the Court – Even though the Criminal Miscellaneous petition now stands withdrawn, this Court is aghast as to how the High Court, in its wisdom, saw it fit to grant a stay against proceedings qua the accused persons – A Court granting a stay of proceedings is not to grant a stay in a mechanical manner – The sum total of circumstances both for and against need to be examined to check as to whether a prima facie case for stay is made out or not, or in other words, whether the non-grant of stay is to somehow prejudice *Author [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1123 Rajeev Kumar Upadhyay v. Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. the party, etc. – Authorities showed insensitivity – The FIR, records that the authorities did not heed the complainant’s request for the registration of an FIR and that recourse had to be taken to Section 156(3) of CrPC – A further peculiar situation came to be when out of the 13 accused persons, only one person, whose name incidentally did not feature directly as having acted against the victims physically or verbally, was sent up for trial – The chargesheet did not disclose any reason as to why the investigating authorities adopted such a course of action – However, ACJM found it fit to send all accused persons to trial, taking the opposite view as put forth in the chargesheet – The State also did not chose to assail the non-speaking order of the High Court granting stay in favour of the accused – There is a need to hold ideals of equality and justice for all – Dignity is an invaluable aspect of Indian Constitutional jurisprudence, and there exists a duty upon the State to take all action to protect the same – Thus, it is directed that the matter to be placed on the file of the concerned District Court to proceed in accordance with the law – The Trial against the accused persons shall proceed on a day-to-day basis. [Paras 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 17, 27] Constitution of India – Art.21 – Dignity: Held: Dignity goes to the very core of the existence of an individual in society – Any action which undermines dignity either by an act of another person or that of the State is potentially going against the spirit of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the security of all persons by ensuring that justice, liberty and equality are avouched for each and every person – By extension, if the dignity of a person is compromised, their human rights, available to them by virtue of them being humans and guaranteed by various enactments, both national and international, are imperilled – Dignity is an invaluable aspect of Indian Constitutional jurisprudence, and there exists a duty upon the State to take all action to protect the same. [Paras 1 and 17] Constitution of India – Art.51A – discussed. [Paras 18-19] Case Law Cited K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India [2017] 10 SCR 569 : (2017) 10 SCC 1 – followed. 1124 [2024] 12 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Vikram Deo Singh Tomar v. State of Bihar [1988] Supp. 1 SCR 755 : 1988 Supp SCC 734; Pawan Kumar v. State of H.P. [2017] 3 SCR 458 : (2017) 7 SCC 780; Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty [19
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.