High Court · 2025

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that they have been falsely implicated in this case. The essential ingredients to establish the offence under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act are not made out on the basis of evidence on record. It is further submitted that both the appellants have been summoned by the trial court to face trial under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act but as a matter of fact in his statement under section 200 Cr.P.C, if taken into entirety, the complainant does not even name the present appellants as assailants nor makes any allegation against them. It is also submitted that although a development has been made in the statements of two witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. but the complainant himself has no grievance with the present appellants as inferred from his own statement. It is also submitted that simple injuries have been found on the person of the complainant/injured in his medical examination. The appellants are having no criminal history to their credit. The impugned order suffers from illegality, infirmity, perversity and lack of judicial mind warranting interference by this Court. It is lastly submitted that in this matter 'the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak' (ममु्ቌई समुस्त गववाह चमुस्त).

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for complainant/opposite party no.2 and the learned AGA vehemently opposed the present appeal and have submitted that offence in this case has been committed on a public place within public view by the present appellants and in the complaint the complainant has made specific terms that he belongs to SC/ST community.

5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully.

6. 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).

7. 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.

8. Thus, it is clear that in a criminal complaint case the Magistrate may summon an accused when he finds prima facie case against him and sufficient materials available on record to proceed against the accused. It is also settled that in a criminal complaint case summoning order has to be passed on the basis of the statements of the complainant and the witnesses under Sections 200 and result of enquiry, if any, under Section 202 CrPC alongwith relevant documentary evidence.

9. In the instant case, no doubt the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 CrPC has been corroborated by two witnesses, who as per the contents of the complaint, were present on the spot at the time of the occurrence. Form their evidence as well it appears that some incident was occurred as narrated in the criminal complaint but so far as the present appellants are concerned the Court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that though in the complaint filed before the Court concerned it has been mentioned that the alleged offence was committed by Shailendra Singh, Ajay Rajput, Harvansh Rajput and Anurag and the witnesses of the incident Gopi and Munnilal produced under Section 202 CrPC also named the same accused persons as assailants but the fact most significant, which draws the attention of this Court, is that the complainant himself in his statement recorded under Section 200 CrPC categorically states that the incident was caused by Raghunath, Ajay, Shailu and Raghuvanshi. The said statement of the complainant is reproduced below : "घटनवा ददीपवावलदी कके ददन 2022 कको शवाम लगभग 4.30-5 बजके ककी हहै। मम चवारखवारदी सके अपनके घर जवा रहवा थवा तभदी रवास्तके मम रघमुनवाथ , अजय, शहैलल, रघमुववंशदी दमलके और कहवा दक मकेरके ललयके शरवाब लवाओ ममनके मनवा दकयवा तको सवालके चमरवा ककी गवाललययॉ ददी ममनके गवालदी दकेनके सके मनवा दकयवा तको इन लकोगोሙ नके ममुझके लवादठियोሙ सके मवारवा। शकोर पर ममुनदीलवाल व गकोपदी नके आकर बचवायवा। जवातके समय यके लकोग जवान सके मवारनके ककी धमककी भदी दके रहके थके। मकेरदी इन लकोगोሙ सके पहलके सके ककोई लडवाई नहदी हहै। यके लकोग वकोट ककी लडवाई मवानतके हम। शहैलल कवा हदी नवाम शहैलकेन््ቖ हहै। रघमुनवाथ कवा नवाम रघमुनवाथ हदी हहै अन्य ककोई नवाम नहदी हहै। मम थवानके गयवा पर ररपकोटर नहदी ललखदी। SP कको पत ललखवा। ककोई कवायरववाहदी न हकोनके पर न्यवायवालय मम पररववाद दकयवा। ममनके अपनदी डवाक्टरदी भदी खमुद करवाई थदी।"

10. From the above, it is clear that the present appellants Harvansh Rajput and Anurag were not present at the time of the occurrence and the crime was committed by Raghunath, Ajay, Shailu and Raghuvanshi and not by the present appellants. It is taken as a serious note by this Court that the complainant himself does not name the present appellants for their presence as assailants at the place of occurrence and further commission of the crime with him. Even if it is supposed that the complainant was insulted by caste related remarks made by the accused persons and he was threatened and assaulted by them, there is absolutely no statement made by the complainant that the present appellants Harvansh Rajput and Anurag committed any offence with him. Though the names of the present appellants find place in the complaint itself and in the statements of witnesses Gopi and Munnilal as PW-1 and PW-2 under Section 202 CrPC but the question arises that when the crime was committed with the complainant what prevented him to take name of the present appellants. Even if it is found that some crime was committed with the complainant, the present appellants were not the author of the same.

11. Hence, in my view the Court concerned totally discarded the aforesaid significant factual matrix and passed the impugned order against the present appellants. It was a material contradiction occurred in the statement of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC and that of the two witnesses under Section 202 CrPC and the contents of the complaint itself but the trial court failed to pay any attention to the aforesaid facts. Therefore, it appears that in fact no judicial mind was applied by the Court concerned before passing of the impugned order of summoning and the said order is cryptic and is not sustainable under law.

12. In Nirmaljit Singh Vs. State of West Bengal, (1973) 3 SCC 753 and it is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the object of examination of the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to ascertain whether there is prima facie case against the person accused of the offence in the complaint, and to prevent the issue of process on complaint which is either false or vexatious or intended only to harass such a person. Such examination is provided therefore to find out whether there is or not sufficient ground for proceeding.

13. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned summoning order 05.06.2023 against the present appellants passed by Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Mahoba in Complaint Case No.135 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, is set aside. Order Date :- 3.4.2025 MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that they have been falsely implicated in this case. The essential ingredients to establish the offence under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act are not made out on the basis of evidence on record. It is further submitted that both the appellants have been summoned by the trial court to face trial under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act but as a matter of fact in his statement under section 200 Cr.P.C, if taken into entirety, the complainant does not even name the present appellants as assailants nor makes any allegation against them. It is also submitted that although a development has been made in the statements of two witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. but the complainant himself has no grievance with the present appellants as inferred from his own statement. It is also submitted that simple injuries have been found on the person of the complainant/injured in his medical examination. The appellants are having no criminal history to their credit. The impugned order suffers from illegality, infirmity, perversity and lack of judicial mind warranting interference by this Court. It is lastly submitted that in this matter 'the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak' (ममु्ቌई समुस्त गववाह चमुस्त).

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for complainant/opposite party no.2 and the learned AGA vehemently opposed the present appeal and have submitted that offence in this case has been committed on a public place within public view by the present appellants and in the complaint the complainant has made specific terms that he belongs to SC/ST community.

5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully.

6. 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).

7. 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.

8. Thus, it is clear that in a criminal complaint case the Magistrate may summon an accused when he finds prima facie case against him and sufficient materials available on record to proceed against the accused. It is also settled that in a criminal complaint case summoning order has to be passed on the basis of the statements of the complainant and the witnesses under Sections 200 and result of enquiry, if any, under Section 202 CrPC alongwith relevant documentary evidence.

9. In the instant case, no doubt the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 CrPC has been corroborated by two witnesses, who as per the contents of the complaint, were present on the spot at the time of the occurrence. Form their evidence as well it appears that some incident was occurred as narrated in the criminal complaint but so far as the present appellants are concerned the Court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that though in the complaint filed before the Court concerned it has been mentioned that the alleged offence was committed by Shailendra Singh, Ajay Rajput, Harvansh Rajput and Anurag and the witnesses of the incident Gopi and Munnilal produced under Section 202 CrPC also named the same accused persons as assailants but the fact most significant, which draws the attention of this Court, is that the complainant himself in his statement recorded under Section 200 CrPC categorically states that the incident was caused by Raghunath, Ajay, Shailu and Raghuvanshi. The said statement of the complainant is reproduced below : "घटनवा ददीपवावलदी कके ददन 2022 कको शवाम लगभग 4.30-5 बजके ककी हहै। मम चवारखवारदी सके अपनके घर जवा रहवा थवा तभदी रवास्तके मम रघमुनवाथ , अजय, शहैलल, रघमुववंशदी दमलके और कहवा दक मकेरके ललयके शरवाब लवाओ ममनके मनवा दकयवा तको सवालके चमरवा ककी गवाललययॉ ददी ममनके गवालदी दकेनके सके मनवा दकयवा तको इन लकोगोሙ नके ममुझके लवादठियोሙ सके मवारवा। शकोर पर ममुनदीलवाल व गकोपदी नके आकर बचवायवा। जवातके समय यके लकोग जवान सके मवारनके ककी धमककी भदी दके रहके थके। मकेरदी इन लकोगोሙ सके पहलके सके ककोई लडवाई नहदी हहै। यके लकोग वकोट ककी लडवाई मवानतके हम। शहैलल कवा हदी नवाम शहैलकेन््ቖ हहै। रघमुनवाथ कवा नवाम रघमुनवाथ हदी हहै अन्य ककोई नवाम नहदी हहै। मम थवानके गयवा पर ररपकोटर नहदी ललखदी। SP कको पत ललखवा। ककोई कवायरववाहदी न हकोनके पर न्यवायवालय मम पररववाद दकयवा। ममनके अपनदी डवाक्टरदी भदी खमुद करवाई थदी।"

10. From the above, it is clear that the present appellants Harvansh Rajput and Anurag were not present at the time of the occurrence and the crime was committed by Raghunath, Ajay, Shailu and Raghuvanshi and not by the present appellants. It is taken as a serious note by this Court that the complainant himself does not name the present appellants for their presence as assailants at the place of occurrence and further commission of the crime with him. Even if it is supposed that the complainant was insulted by caste related remarks made by the accused persons and he was threatened and assaulted by them, there is absolutely no statement made by the complainant that the present appellants Harvansh Rajput and Anurag committed any offence with him. Though the names of the present appellants find place in the complaint itself and in the statements of witnesses Gopi and Munnilal as PW-1 and PW-2 under Section 202 CrPC but the question arises that when the crime was committed with the complainant what prevented him to take name of the present appellants. Even if it is found that some crime was committed with the complainant, the present appellants were not the author of the same.

11. Hence, in my view the Court concerned totally discarded the aforesaid significant factual matrix and passed the impugned order against the present appellants. It was a material contradiction occurred in the statement of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC and that of the two witnesses under Section 202 CrPC and the contents of the complaint itself but the trial court failed to pay any attention to the aforesaid facts. Therefore, it appears that in fact no judicial mind was applied by the Court concerned before passing of the impugned order of summoning and the said order is cryptic and is not sustainable under law.

12. In Nirmaljit Singh Vs. State of West Bengal, (1973) 3 SCC 753 and it is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the object of examination of the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to ascertain whether there is prima facie case against the person accused of the offence in the complaint, and to prevent the issue of process on complaint which is either false or vexatious or intended only to harass such a person. Such examination is provided therefore to find out whether there is or not sufficient ground for proceeding.

13. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned summoning order 05.06.2023 against the present appellants passed by Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Mahoba in Complaint Case No.135 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, is set aside. Order Date :- 3.4.2025 MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad