High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 93 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6726 of 2022 Appellant :- Tapan Jain And 3 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- M.P.S. Chauhan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ramdhan Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar,J.
Legal Reasoning
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. 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." 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." 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. 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." 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. 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;" In the instant matter, perusal of record shows that the respondent No.2 has made a complaint of this case against appellants alleging that due to non-payment of money regarding supply of books, the appellants have abused the first informant/complainant & his husband and showing the countrymade pistol threatened to kill them, however, some people reached there and saved them. The appellants have abused the first informant/complainant by using caste indicative words. First informant belongs to scheduled caste. During enquiry, several other witnesses have supported the prosecution version. The alleged incident has taken place at the complainant's house and aforesaid offence has been committed by the accused because the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste community. In the instant case considering the allegations made in the complaint and material collected during enquiry, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out. No material illegality or perversity could be shown in the impugned summoning order. Thus this appeal has no substance and is liable to be dismissed.
Arguments
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. 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 order dated 07.07.2022, passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Hapur, in Complaint Case No. 01/2020, under Sections 323, 452, 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Hafizpur, District-Hapur. It has been argued by learned counsel for appellants that appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Present dispute relates non-payment of money regarding supply of books. Neither any specific role has been assigned to the present appellants nor they have abused to the complainant as has been alleged in the complaint. It is further submitted that there is no independent eye witness to the said incident. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the court below in routine manner and without appreciating the evidences available on record thus, the same is illegal and liable to be quashed. The allegations made against the appellants are false and baseless. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the appeal and submitted that in the complaint as well as in the statement of complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and of witnesses, recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., a prima facie case is made out against the appellants. It was submitted that there are allegations that the accused-appellants has abused the complainant by using caste indicative words. I have considered rival submissions and perused the record.
Decision
With aforesaid observations, the appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 24.3.2023 Ashutosh Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad