High Court · 2025

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record. Despite service of notice, none is present for the opposite party no.2.

3. The facts of this case, as unfolded in the F.I.R., are that the informant Raj Kumari, who is a member of SC/ST community, was having some litigation animosity with Suresh and some other persons and due to the said animosity on 7.3.2023 at about 10.00 a.m. accused Suresh and his daughter Soni hurled abuses to the informant with caste related remarks and when she went in the house the accused persons Suresh, Ramesh, Deepu, Agrawal, Soni and Nanhi with common intention entered into the house of the informant and she was bitterly beaten by kicks and fists. Accused Deepu tried to outrage the modesty of the informant and her jewels were also taken by the co-accused Nanhi. On her shrieks Ram Das and Ramu and other villagers came over there and the accused persons fled away after threatening for dire consequences. F.I.R. was lodged and now charge sheet has been submitted into the matter. The trial court after perusing the evidence available in the case diary took cognizance of the matter and the appellants were summoned to face trial under Sections 147, 354-kha, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(2(va) the SC/ST Act.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. The present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention. The entire prosecution story is false and fabricated. There are contradictions in the statements of the informant and that of the witnesses recorded before the Investigating Officer under Section 161 CrPC. It is also submitted that from the evidence collected during investigation no offence under the SC/ST is made out against the appellants. It is further submitted that the accusation of accused Suresh for hurling abuses with caste related remarks has been alleged but now he has died. It is also submitted that only simple injuries have been sustained by the injured persons. The alleged incident happened only on account of old litigation animosity. It is also submitted that all jugglery has been done by Ram Das, who is said to be the witness of this case and prior to that the said Ram Das himself filed two criminal cases against the appellants. He is a pocket witness of the informant. In her statement under Section 164 CrPC the informant twisted the entire story and alleged co-accused Deepu for committing rape with her by threatening her with country made pistol. It is also submitted that since the incident is said to be occurred within the house of the informant, it cannot be said that the incident occurred at a public place within public view. The police has also submitted charge sheet on the basis of insufficient evidence against the appellants. Essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offences are lacking. Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

5. The next argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the I.O. of this case collected absolutely no evidence to the effect that the incident took place in any place within the public view and intentional insult or intimidation was made by the appellants. It is further submitted that there is not even an iota of evidence on record as collected by the I.O. that the appellants committed the alleged offence for the simple reason of the injured/informant being a member of SC/ST community. It is also submitted that the appellants never hurled abuses to insult her by caste related remarks. The impugned orders suffer from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

6. Per contra, the learned AGA opposed the appeal and submitted that in this matter the incident started from a place outside the house of the informant where accused Suresh and his daughter Soni hurled abuses to the informant with caste related remarks. It is also submitted 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 concerned after applying its judicial mind has passed the cognizance and summoning order on the basis of sufficient evidence on record. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the appeal having no force is liable 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.

8. 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 as to whether sufficient grounds exist 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).

9. 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.

10. So far as the case in hand is concerned, the prosecution claims that the accused appellants hurled abuses to the informant with caste related remarks and also made assault upon her and her associates. The witnesses of this case including the informant have affirmed this fact when they were interrogated by the I.O. under Section 161 CrPC. Further, evidence collected by the I.O. prima facie shows that the offence has been committed with the informant, who is 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 informant / injured is 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 on the basis of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer. Since the incident started outside the house of the informant where accused Suresh and her daughter Soni hurled abuses to the informant with caste related remarks, therefore, the incident occurred at a public place within the public view.

11. Further, 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. Sufficient evidence has been collected against the appellants during the course of investigation. The Court concerned did not err in 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 orders do 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 :- 26.5.2025 MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record. Despite service of notice, none is present for the opposite party no.2.

3. The facts of this case, as unfolded in the F.I.R., are that the informant Raj Kumari, who is a member of SC/ST community, was having some litigation animosity with Suresh and some other persons and due to the said animosity on 7.3.2023 at about 10.00 a.m. accused Suresh and his daughter Soni hurled abuses to the informant with caste related remarks and when she went in the house the accused persons Suresh, Ramesh, Deepu, Agrawal, Soni and Nanhi with common intention entered into the house of the informant and she was bitterly beaten by kicks and fists. Accused Deepu tried to outrage the modesty of the informant and her jewels were also taken by the co-accused Nanhi. On her shrieks Ram Das and Ramu and other villagers came over there and the accused persons fled away after threatening for dire consequences. F.I.R. was lodged and now charge sheet has been submitted into the matter. The trial court after perusing the evidence available in the case diary took cognizance of the matter and the appellants were summoned to face trial under Sections 147, 354-kha, 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(2(va) the SC/ST Act.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. The present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention. The entire prosecution story is false and fabricated. There are contradictions in the statements of the informant and that of the witnesses recorded before the Investigating Officer under Section 161 CrPC. It is also submitted that from the evidence collected during investigation no offence under the SC/ST is made out against the appellants. It is further submitted that the accusation of accused Suresh for hurling abuses with caste related remarks has been alleged but now he has died. It is also submitted that only simple injuries have been sustained by the injured persons. The alleged incident happened only on account of old litigation animosity. It is also submitted that all jugglery has been done by Ram Das, who is said to be the witness of this case and prior to that the said Ram Das himself filed two criminal cases against the appellants. He is a pocket witness of the informant. In her statement under Section 164 CrPC the informant twisted the entire story and alleged co-accused Deepu for committing rape with her by threatening her with country made pistol. It is also submitted that since the incident is said to be occurred within the house of the informant, it cannot be said that the incident occurred at a public place within public view. The police has also submitted charge sheet on the basis of insufficient evidence against the appellants. Essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offences are lacking. Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.

5. The next argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the I.O. of this case collected absolutely no evidence to the effect that the incident took place in any place within the public view and intentional insult or intimidation was made by the appellants. It is further submitted that there is not even an iota of evidence on record as collected by the I.O. that the appellants committed the alleged offence for the simple reason of the injured/informant being a member of SC/ST community. It is also submitted that the appellants never hurled abuses to insult her by caste related remarks. The impugned orders suffer from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

6. Per contra, the learned AGA opposed the appeal and submitted that in this matter the incident started from a place outside the house of the informant where accused Suresh and his daughter Soni hurled abuses to the informant with caste related remarks. It is also submitted 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 concerned after applying its judicial mind has passed the cognizance and summoning order on the basis of sufficient evidence on record. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the appeal having no force is liable 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.

8. 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 as to whether sufficient grounds exist 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).

9. 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.

10. So far as the case in hand is concerned, the prosecution claims that the accused appellants hurled abuses to the informant with caste related remarks and also made assault upon her and her associates. The witnesses of this case including the informant have affirmed this fact when they were interrogated by the I.O. under Section 161 CrPC. Further, evidence collected by the I.O. prima facie shows that the offence has been committed with the informant, who is 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 informant / injured is 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 on the basis of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer. Since the incident started outside the house of the informant where accused Suresh and her daughter Soni hurled abuses to the informant with caste related remarks, therefore, the incident occurred at a public place within the public view.

11. Further, 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. Sufficient evidence has been collected against the appellants during the course of investigation. The Court concerned did not err in 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 orders do 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 :- 26.5.2025 MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad