Jagatram v. Chandra Prakash Yadav and others), under Sections
Case Details
Court No. - 93 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1455 of 2023 Appellant :- Vijay Pratap Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Prashant Kumar Singh,Surendra Prasad Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State. None appears on behalf of respondent no.2 despite service of notice. 2. This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 14-A (1) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST Act') against the summoning order dated 02.11.2022, passed by Exclusive Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Basti, in Complaint Case No. 289/2019 (Jagatram Vs. Chandra Prakash Yadav and others), under Sections 419, 420, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Rudhauli, District Basti. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for appellant that the respondent No.2 has lodged the complaint of this case making false and baseless allegations and that no such incident, as alleged in the complaint, took place. According to the version of the complainant, the accused person has abused the complainant into his house in respect of exchange of money and thus, it cannot be said that any offence under the provisions of 419, 420 I.P.C. is made out. There is no medical examination of the injured. Submission is that no such incident took place as has been alleged in the complaint. The allegations made against the appellant are false and baseless. It is further submitted that even according to the version of the complainant, the alleged incident took place inside the house of the appellant and thus, it cannot be said that the demand of money was made from the appellant and thus, no offence under Sections 419, 420 I.P.C., is made out against the appellant.
Legal Reasoning
recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., a prima facie case is made out against the appellant. It was submitted that there are allegations that the accused-appellant has abused the complainant by using caste indicative words. 5. I have considered rival submissions and perused the record. 6. It is well settled that at the stage of summoning the accused on the basis of a private complaint all that is required is a satisfaction by the Magistrate that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused in the light of the records made available and the evidence adduced by the complainant. At that stage the Magistrate has to find out whether prima facie case made out against the accused or not. The Magistrate is not required to meticulously appreciate the evidence at the stage of 203/204 Cr.P.C. All that the Magistrate has to do is to see whether on a cursory perusal of the complaint and the evidence recorded during preliminary enquiry under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. that there is prima facie evidence in support of charge leveled against the accused. The Magistrate/Court has to see whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused and in that process the court is not to weigh the evidence meticulously. However, the order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. The application of mind has to be indicated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. Considering the duties on the part of the Magistrate for issuance of summons to accused in a complaint case and that there must be sufficient indication as to the application of mind and observing that the Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking cognizance of the complaint. 7. In Jagdish Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Another (2004) 4 SCC 432, it was held as under:- "10. ....The taking of cognizance of the offence is an area exclusively within the domain of a Magistrate. At this stage, the Magistrate has to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction, can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of inquiry. At the stage of issuing the process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons." 8. In Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others (1998) 5 SCC 749, the Supreme Court has held that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and that the order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and law governing the issue. In para (28), it was held as under:- "28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused." 9. In Punjab National Bank and Others v. Surendra Prasad Sinha 1993 Supp (1) SCC 499, it was held that the issuance of process should not be mechanical nor should be made an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. At the stage of issuance of process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record detailed orders. But based on the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same, the Magistrate is to be prima facie satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. 10. Similarly, this Court in the case of Smt. Shiv Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2017 (2) JIC, 589, (All) (LB) held as under:- "Learned Magistrate was required to atleast mention in the order about the prima facie satisfaction for summoning the accused. The order must reflect that the learned Magistrate has exercised his jurisdiction in accordance with law after satisfying himself about the prima facie allegations made in the complaint. The accused cannot be summoned mechanically merely by writing that perused the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C." 11. Thus, it is clear that at the stage of summoning the accused on the basis of a private complaint, the Magistrate/Court has to satisfy itself that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused in the light of the material on record and the evidence adduced by the complainant. The Magistrate has to find out whether prima facie case is made out against the accused or not, however it is equally desirable that the order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. 12. At this stage, it would be appropriate to quote the provisions of Section 3(1) Da/(r) and Dha/(s) of SC/ST Act, which reads as follows:- "Section 3(1)(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; Section 3(1)(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view;" 13. In the instant matter, perusal of record shows that the respondent No. 2 has lodged complaint of this case alleging that on 20.10.2019 when the complainant went to the home of the appellant to demand his money the appellant who is the brother of the person from whom the money was to be demanded had abused the complainant by using caste indicative words and threatened him to life. In his statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the complainant has stated that the accused person abused the complainant by using caste indicative words. Similar are the statements of Usha Devi and Hariram, who have been examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. However, it is apparent from the facts of the matter that no offence under section 419, 420 I.P.C. is made out against the appellant. In the instant case, the said ingredient is completely missing. It appears that the trial court did not consider this aspect of the matter while passing the impugned order. 14. In view of aforesaid, it is apparent that no case under Sections 419, 420 I.P.C. is made out against the appellant. Thus, the summoning of accused-appellant under Sections 419, 420 I.P.C., is quashed. However, the summoning of appellant under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act is upheld. The impugned summoning order stands altered to this extent. The case against the appellant under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act shall proceed before the competent court in accordance with law. 15. The appeal is disposed of with above terms. Order Date :- 29.3.2023/ Shiv Digitally signed by :- SHIV KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
4. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have opposed the appeal. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 argued that in the complaint as well as in the statement of complainant, recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and of witnesses,