In Sampat Singh v. State of Haryana

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned AGA for the State as well as the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the material available on record.

4. An F.I.R. lodged by the informant Ashish Kumar culminated into final report after investigation. The said final report was protested by the informant and the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Auraiya after hearing rejected the final report dated 3.6.2020 submitted by the police and cognizance was taken under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC against the accused persons Ramji Chaubey, Sarvesh Kumar, Pranshu and Anil Kumar and they were summoned to face trial under Sections 364, 302, 201 IPC and 3(2) (v) of the SC/ST Act. Feeling aggrieved with the said order, the accused appellants have preferred this appeal with the aforesaid prayer.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Investigating Officer of this case found absolutely no evidence against the appellants and that is why a closure report was submitted by him. The I.O. found absolutely no role or involvement of the present appellants in the alleged incident and in fact it was a case of accidental death of the deceased but the police made a concocted story of kidnapping and murder of the deceased Ram Kesh. It is also submitted that the Court concerned totally ignored the fact that in the F.I.R. or in the statements under Section 161 CrPC of the witnesses even no whispering was found regarding the use of caste related remarks by the accused appellants and moreover the essential ingredients to constitute the offence under SC/ST Act are completely missing in this case. In the case diary the I.O. has made clear mentioning of the fact that the deceased was present in the house of his relative Ram Darshan for attending jhanda poojan prayer on 23.3.2018 till 10.00 p.m. and several persons witnessed his presence in his house at the relevant point of time. It is also submitted that while performing the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased it was found that it was a case of accidental death and the deceased was never kidnapped or murdered. The present appellants were very well present in the village. It is also submitted that the investigation subsequently was handed over to CBCID and in the investigation made by the CBCID statements of several persons were recorded and none of the witnesses corroborated the prosecution version as alleged in the F.I.R. The presence of the deceased was not found in the company of the present appellants at the relevant point of time. It is further submitted that even no prima case was made out against the appellants during investigation and the protest petition filed by the informant was nothing but a bundle of wrong facts. The appellants had never been indulged in the commission of the crime for kidnapping and committing murder of the deceased. The Court concerned committed manifest error in rejecting the final report and summoning the appellants in the said case. The impugned order suffers from infirmity, illegality, perversity and lack of judicial mind warranting interference by this Court.

6. On the other hand, learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer and it has been submitted that from a perusal of the F.I.R. itself a prima case is made out against the appellants wherein it has been specifically alleged that the father of the informant was kidnapped by the appellants before Km. Soni, daughter of the deceased, in a Bolero Car which was driven by Ramji Chaubey wherein the other appellants were also sitting and subsequently the dead body of the father of the informant was found on Tibiyapur Bela Road in front of kiln and the incident was seen by the sister of the informant who also informed him on phone. On the next day the informant got an information about the dead body of his father lying along the road and then F.I.R. in this matter was lodged. It is also submitted that it appears that any how the I.O. of this case was managed by the accused persons and that is why final report was deliberately submitted in the instant matter. It is further submitted that immediate cause of death of the deceased was found as shock and hemorrhage and he died due to ante mortem injuries, as mentioned in the autopsy report. It is further submitted that the Court concerned committed no error in rejecting the final report filed by the I.O. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

7. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

8. Before adverting to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to have a glance on the relevant provisions / laws on the subject.

9. In Sampat Singh vs. State of Haryana (1993)1 SCC 561 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that when the investigation culminates into a final report, the duty of the Magistrate or the court is to scrupulously scrutinize the report and accompaniments by applying the judicial mind either to accept or reject the final report and take cognizance.

10. Further, in Kishore Kumar Gyanchandani vs. G.D. Mehrotra and another, AIR 2002 SC 483, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when police after investigation files a final form under Section 173, the Magistrate may disagree with conclusion arrived at by police and take cognizance in exercise of power under Section 190 CrPC.

11. Naturally, if the informant does not find himself in conformity with the final report submitted by the police, he has all rights to oppose the final report by way of filing a protest petition and on receiving the protest petition if the Court after perusing the entire record including the protest petition and final report is of the view that the final report submitted by the police is a bogus document it can very well reject the final report. Secondly, the Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance of the matter and order for issuance of the process against the accused for the relevant offences, and thirdly, the Magistrate is empowered to treat the protest petition submitted by the informant as complaint and thereafter he may apply the procedure of a complaint case and on completing the necessary formalities he may summon the accused to face trial in a complaint case. He is further empowered to pass an order for further investigation in the matter. But the issue mandatory is that in no case the informant should be left unheard and if he has been served with the notice and appears before the Court and opts to submit a protest petition, the Magistrate is bound to take into consideration the objections raised in the protest petition.

12. Further, it is trite law that at the stage of taking cognizance and summoning the accused, the Magistrate / Court dealing with the matter is required to apply judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence to find-out as to whether prima- facie case has been made out to summon the accused or not. The Court at this stage is not required to analyze the material on record to find-out as to whether the matter may lead to conviction or not. Sufficiency of materials for the purpose of conviction is not required. It is also settled that even when there are materials raising strong suspicion against the accused, the Court will be justified in taking cognizance and summoning the accused. The Court / Magistrate is not required to analyze the evidence on merits but to scrutinize the evidence only with a view to initiate criminal proceedings in respect of the offence which is said to have been committed (Vide : R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283).

13. In State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, (2019) 20 SCC 539, the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that for issuance of summons strict standard of proof of satisfaction of the Magistrate regarding sufficiency of ground(s) to proceed in the matter is not required and such satisfaction should be based only on prima facie evidence. Before summoning the accused, the facts stated will have to be accepted as they appear on the very face of it. Sufficiency of evidence to hold accused guilty, merits of matter and defence pleas have to be examined at the stage of trial and not at the stage of issuance of process. Whether statement of a witness is hearsay and whether it is supported by "contemporaneous exposition" and whether it would fall under "res gestae" and whether it is admissible or not is to be seen only at the time of trial.

14. In the present matter the prosecution claims that father of the informant was kidnapped by the appellants before Km. Soni, daughter of the deceased, in a Bolero Car which was being driven by Ramji Chaubey wherein the other appellants were also sitting and subsequently his dead body was found lying along the road. Thus, Km. Soni, daughter of the deceased, is the witness of last seen together. Further, from a perusal of the entire record it prima facie shows that the alleged offence has been committed by the appellants with the deceased, who was a member of the SC/ST community whereas the appellants are not members of SC/ST community and accused appellants were very well knowing that the deceased was a member of SC/ST community. Hence, all the offences for which cognizance in this case was taken by the Court concerned are prima facie made out and accordingly final report was rejected and cognizance was taken by the Court concerned under Sections 364, 302, 201 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, and the appellants have been summoned to face trial for the aforesaid offfences.

15. As is evident, all the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in this appeal. At this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the settled law, as discussed here-in-above. From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that offences levelled against the appellants are not made out and the record shows that a cognizable offence is clearly made out against the appellants. The Court concerned did not err in rejecting the final report submitted by the police and taking cognizance into the matter and thereby to summon the accused / appellants to face trial for the offences made out prima facie. There is no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. The impugned order does not suffer from illegality, infirmity, perversity or lack of judicial mind. The prayer made in the appeal is refused. The criminal appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 25.7.2025 MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned AGA for the State as well as the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the material available on record.

4. An F.I.R. lodged by the informant Ashish Kumar culminated into final report after investigation. The said final report was protested by the informant and the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Auraiya after hearing rejected the final report dated 3.6.2020 submitted by the police and cognizance was taken under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC against the accused persons Ramji Chaubey, Sarvesh Kumar, Pranshu and Anil Kumar and they were summoned to face trial under Sections 364, 302, 201 IPC and 3(2) (v) of the SC/ST Act. Feeling aggrieved with the said order, the accused appellants have preferred this appeal with the aforesaid prayer.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Investigating Officer of this case found absolutely no evidence against the appellants and that is why a closure report was submitted by him. The I.O. found absolutely no role or involvement of the present appellants in the alleged incident and in fact it was a case of accidental death of the deceased but the police made a concocted story of kidnapping and murder of the deceased Ram Kesh. It is also submitted that the Court concerned totally ignored the fact that in the F.I.R. or in the statements under Section 161 CrPC of the witnesses even no whispering was found regarding the use of caste related remarks by the accused appellants and moreover the essential ingredients to constitute the offence under SC/ST Act are completely missing in this case. In the case diary the I.O. has made clear mentioning of the fact that the deceased was present in the house of his relative Ram Darshan for attending jhanda poojan prayer on 23.3.2018 till 10.00 p.m. and several persons witnessed his presence in his house at the relevant point of time. It is also submitted that while performing the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased it was found that it was a case of accidental death and the deceased was never kidnapped or murdered. The present appellants were very well present in the village. It is also submitted that the investigation subsequently was handed over to CBCID and in the investigation made by the CBCID statements of several persons were recorded and none of the witnesses corroborated the prosecution version as alleged in the F.I.R. The presence of the deceased was not found in the company of the present appellants at the relevant point of time. It is further submitted that even no prima case was made out against the appellants during investigation and the protest petition filed by the informant was nothing but a bundle of wrong facts. The appellants had never been indulged in the commission of the crime for kidnapping and committing murder of the deceased. The Court concerned committed manifest error in rejecting the final report and summoning the appellants in the said case. The impugned order suffers from infirmity, illegality, perversity and lack of judicial mind warranting interference by this Court.

6. On the other hand, learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer and it has been submitted that from a perusal of the F.I.R. itself a prima case is made out against the appellants wherein it has been specifically alleged that the father of the informant was kidnapped by the appellants before Km. Soni, daughter of the deceased, in a Bolero Car which was driven by Ramji Chaubey wherein the other appellants were also sitting and subsequently the dead body of the father of the informant was found on Tibiyapur Bela Road in front of kiln and the incident was seen by the sister of the informant who also informed him on phone. On the next day the informant got an information about the dead body of his father lying along the road and then F.I.R. in this matter was lodged. It is also submitted that it appears that any how the I.O. of this case was managed by the accused persons and that is why final report was deliberately submitted in the instant matter. It is further submitted that immediate cause of death of the deceased was found as shock and hemorrhage and he died due to ante mortem injuries, as mentioned in the autopsy report. It is further submitted that the Court concerned committed no error in rejecting the final report filed by the I.O. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

7. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

8. Before adverting to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to have a glance on the relevant provisions / laws on the subject.

9. In Sampat Singh vs. State of Haryana (1993)1 SCC 561 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that when the investigation culminates into a final report, the duty of the Magistrate or the court is to scrupulously scrutinize the report and accompaniments by applying the judicial mind either to accept or reject the final report and take cognizance.

10. Further, in Kishore Kumar Gyanchandani vs. G.D. Mehrotra and another, AIR 2002 SC 483, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when police after investigation files a final form under Section 173, the Magistrate may disagree with conclusion arrived at by police and take cognizance in exercise of power under Section 190 CrPC.

11. Naturally, if the informant does not find himself in conformity with the final report submitted by the police, he has all rights to oppose the final report by way of filing a protest petition and on receiving the protest petition if the Court after perusing the entire record including the protest petition and final report is of the view that the final report submitted by the police is a bogus document it can very well reject the final report. Secondly, the Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance of the matter and order for issuance of the process against the accused for the relevant offences, and thirdly, the Magistrate is empowered to treat the protest petition submitted by the informant as complaint and thereafter he may apply the procedure of a complaint case and on completing the necessary formalities he may summon the accused to face trial in a complaint case. He is further empowered to pass an order for further investigation in the matter. But the issue mandatory is that in no case the informant should be left unheard and if he has been served with the notice and appears before the Court and opts to submit a protest petition, the Magistrate is bound to take into consideration the objections raised in the protest petition.

12. Further, it is trite law that at the stage of taking cognizance and summoning the accused, the Magistrate / Court dealing with the matter is required to apply judicial mind only with a view to take cognizance of the offence to find-out as to whether prima- facie case has been made out to summon the accused or not. The Court at this stage is not required to analyze the material on record to find-out as to whether the matter may lead to conviction or not. Sufficiency of materials for the purpose of conviction is not required. It is also settled that even when there are materials raising strong suspicion against the accused, the Court will be justified in taking cognizance and summoning the accused. The Court / Magistrate is not required to analyze the evidence on merits but to scrutinize the evidence only with a view to initiate criminal proceedings in respect of the offence which is said to have been committed (Vide : R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283).

13. In State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta, (2019) 20 SCC 539, the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that for issuance of summons strict standard of proof of satisfaction of the Magistrate regarding sufficiency of ground(s) to proceed in the matter is not required and such satisfaction should be based only on prima facie evidence. Before summoning the accused, the facts stated will have to be accepted as they appear on the very face of it. Sufficiency of evidence to hold accused guilty, merits of matter and defence pleas have to be examined at the stage of trial and not at the stage of issuance of process. Whether statement of a witness is hearsay and whether it is supported by "contemporaneous exposition" and whether it would fall under "res gestae" and whether it is admissible or not is to be seen only at the time of trial.

14. In the present matter the prosecution claims that father of the informant was kidnapped by the appellants before Km. Soni, daughter of the deceased, in a Bolero Car which was being driven by Ramji Chaubey wherein the other appellants were also sitting and subsequently his dead body was found lying along the road. Thus, Km. Soni, daughter of the deceased, is the witness of last seen together. Further, from a perusal of the entire record it prima facie shows that the alleged offence has been committed by the appellants with the deceased, who was a member of the SC/ST community whereas the appellants are not members of SC/ST community and accused appellants were very well knowing that the deceased was a member of SC/ST community. Hence, all the offences for which cognizance in this case was taken by the Court concerned are prima facie made out and accordingly final report was rejected and cognizance was taken by the Court concerned under Sections 364, 302, 201 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, and the appellants have been summoned to face trial for the aforesaid offfences.

15. As is evident, all the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in this appeal. At this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the settled law, as discussed here-in-above. From a perusal of the material available on record and keeping in view the facts of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that offences levelled against the appellants are not made out and the record shows that a cognizable offence is clearly made out against the appellants. The Court concerned did not err in rejecting the final report submitted by the police and taking cognizance into the matter and thereby to summon the accused / appellants to face trial for the offences made out prima facie. There is no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. The impugned order does not suffer from illegality, infirmity, perversity or lack of judicial mind. The prayer made in the appeal is refused. The criminal appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 25.7.2025 MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad