High Court · 2025

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

4. The complaint case filed by the complainant / opposite party no.2, who is a member of SC/ST community, arose from an application under Section 156(3) CrPC moved by him with the allegation that on 2.12.2023 at about 5.00 p.m. when he was returning from Civil Court, Aligarh, the accused persons Tejendra and Ravendra stopped him on the way and hurled abuses by caste related remarks and when he entered into his house the accused persons Ajit, Virendra @ Veeru, Mukesh, Lakshman, Pramod, Tejendra and Ravendra, who do not belong to SC/ST community, entered into the house of the complainant alongwith lathi danda and country made pistol and made assault upon him and also tried to outrage the modesty of his wife and when brother Rameshwar came out to rescue, he was also beaten by the aforesaid accused persons / appellants and was pushed outside the house and they again hurled abuses by caste related remarks. The injured was medically examined and when the police did not lodge the report rather took action against Santosh, uncle of the complainant, an application was sent by the complainant to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh but when he remained unheard, an application U/S 156(3) CrPC was moved and by the order of the Court the said application was treated as criminal complaint. On the basis of the statements under Section 200 of the complainant and under Section 202 CrPC of the witnesses and other relevant documents on record the court concerned took cognizance into the matter and passed the impugned summoning order against the present appellants to face trial for the offences under Sections 147, 323, 504, 452 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that they have been falsely implicated in this case. The essential ingredients to establish the alleged offences are lacking on the basis of evidence on record. It is further submitted that earlier an F.I.R. as case crime no. 801 of 2023 was lodged from the appellants' side against the opposite party no.2 / complainant on 3.12.2023 i.e. prior to filing of the aforesaid application under Section 156(3) CrPC by the opposite party no.2 and after investigation charge sheet was submitted in the said matter. It is further submitted that the injured of the said case was medically examined and no visible injuries were found upon his body. It is also submitted that prior to the said incident a Civil Suit was also filed by the opposite party no.2 against the appellants side, which is still pending. It is also submitted that prior to the said Civil Suit filed by the opposite party no.2, a Civil Suit was also filed by the present appellants before the competent Civil Court at Aligarh and the said case was decided ex-parte in favour of the present appellants. It is also submitted that due to this animosity the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. Medical evidence does not support the case of the complainant. It is further submitted that the family members of the complainant, who were examined under Section 202 CrPC, do not corroborate the averments mentioned in the complaint. It is also submitted that the incident, according to the complainant's side, took place within the house of the complainant and no incident took place at public place within public view. What caste related remarks were made by the appellants during the incident have not been explained either in the complaint or in the evidence under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC. It is further submitted that the Court concerned had also directed to make an enquiry under Section 202 CrPC by the police and in the said police report it was mentioned that no occurrence, as alleged in the application under Section 156(3) CrPC, occurred and the facts narrated in the said application were wrong. The impugned order suffers from illegality, infirmity, perversity and lack of judicial mind warranting interference by this Court.

6. 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 at a public place within public view by the present appellants and in the complaint the complainant has specifically averred that he belongs to SC/ST community. It is also submitted that the present case and the case lodged by the appellants are cross-cases and since the police under influence of the appellants lodged their report and did not help the complainant's side and he was running here and there for lodging his report at the police station but failed and it compelled him to move the aforesaid application U/S 156(3) CrPC which took a long time to be decided. It is also submitted that since both the cases are cross cases, the trial court committed no legal or factual error in passing the impugned summoning order against the appellants. The injury report of the injured from the complainant's side also corroborates the prosecution version. It is further submitted that to establish the offence under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act it is never required that the incident should have taken place at a place within public view. It is also submitted that at the stage of summoning the trial court is not required at all to pass a detailed order elaborating the complete facts. The impugned summoning order does not suffer from infirmity, illegality, perversity or lack of judicial mind.

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

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 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. Thus, it is clear that in a criminal complaint case the Magistrate may summon an accused when he finds prima facie case to be made out against him and other 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.

11. In the instant case, the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 CrPC has been corroborated by the witnesses without any material contradiction. From their evidence as well it appears that incident occurred as narrated in the criminal complaint. It is mentioned in the complaint itself that part of the occurrence was committed outside the house of the opposite party no.2/ complainant. Hence, the incident also happened at a public place within public view, although it was not required for establishing an offence under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. The prosecution claims that the accused appellants hurled abuses to the informant with caste related remarks and also made assault upon him. Hence, the order to take cognizance in this case and the summoning order passed on the basis of evidence available on record are legally correct orders. It is also evident that in the cross- case after investigation charge sheet has been submitted.

12. 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 adduced against the appellants. 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 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 :- 8.5.2025 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 - complainant and perused the material available on record.

4. The complaint case filed by the complainant / opposite party no.2, who is a member of SC/ST community, arose from an application under Section 156(3) CrPC moved by him with the allegation that on 2.12.2023 at about 5.00 p.m. when he was returning from Civil Court, Aligarh, the accused persons Tejendra and Ravendra stopped him on the way and hurled abuses by caste related remarks and when he entered into his house the accused persons Ajit, Virendra @ Veeru, Mukesh, Lakshman, Pramod, Tejendra and Ravendra, who do not belong to SC/ST community, entered into the house of the complainant alongwith lathi danda and country made pistol and made assault upon him and also tried to outrage the modesty of his wife and when brother Rameshwar came out to rescue, he was also beaten by the aforesaid accused persons / appellants and was pushed outside the house and they again hurled abuses by caste related remarks. The injured was medically examined and when the police did not lodge the report rather took action against Santosh, uncle of the complainant, an application was sent by the complainant to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh but when he remained unheard, an application U/S 156(3) CrPC was moved and by the order of the Court the said application was treated as criminal complaint. On the basis of the statements under Section 200 of the complainant and under Section 202 CrPC of the witnesses and other relevant documents on record the court concerned took cognizance into the matter and passed the impugned summoning order against the present appellants to face trial for the offences under Sections 147, 323, 504, 452 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that they have been falsely implicated in this case. The essential ingredients to establish the alleged offences are lacking on the basis of evidence on record. It is further submitted that earlier an F.I.R. as case crime no. 801 of 2023 was lodged from the appellants' side against the opposite party no.2 / complainant on 3.12.2023 i.e. prior to filing of the aforesaid application under Section 156(3) CrPC by the opposite party no.2 and after investigation charge sheet was submitted in the said matter. It is further submitted that the injured of the said case was medically examined and no visible injuries were found upon his body. It is also submitted that prior to the said incident a Civil Suit was also filed by the opposite party no.2 against the appellants side, which is still pending. It is also submitted that prior to the said Civil Suit filed by the opposite party no.2, a Civil Suit was also filed by the present appellants before the competent Civil Court at Aligarh and the said case was decided ex-parte in favour of the present appellants. It is also submitted that due to this animosity the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. Medical evidence does not support the case of the complainant. It is further submitted that the family members of the complainant, who were examined under Section 202 CrPC, do not corroborate the averments mentioned in the complaint. It is also submitted that the incident, according to the complainant's side, took place within the house of the complainant and no incident took place at public place within public view. What caste related remarks were made by the appellants during the incident have not been explained either in the complaint or in the evidence under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC. It is further submitted that the Court concerned had also directed to make an enquiry under Section 202 CrPC by the police and in the said police report it was mentioned that no occurrence, as alleged in the application under Section 156(3) CrPC, occurred and the facts narrated in the said application were wrong. The impugned order suffers from illegality, infirmity, perversity and lack of judicial mind warranting interference by this Court.

6. 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 at a public place within public view by the present appellants and in the complaint the complainant has specifically averred that he belongs to SC/ST community. It is also submitted that the present case and the case lodged by the appellants are cross-cases and since the police under influence of the appellants lodged their report and did not help the complainant's side and he was running here and there for lodging his report at the police station but failed and it compelled him to move the aforesaid application U/S 156(3) CrPC which took a long time to be decided. It is also submitted that since both the cases are cross cases, the trial court committed no legal or factual error in passing the impugned summoning order against the appellants. The injury report of the injured from the complainant's side also corroborates the prosecution version. It is further submitted that to establish the offence under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act it is never required that the incident should have taken place at a place within public view. It is also submitted that at the stage of summoning the trial court is not required at all to pass a detailed order elaborating the complete facts. The impugned summoning order does not suffer from infirmity, illegality, perversity or lack of judicial mind.

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

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 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. Thus, it is clear that in a criminal complaint case the Magistrate may summon an accused when he finds prima facie case to be made out against him and other 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.

11. In the instant case, the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 CrPC has been corroborated by the witnesses without any material contradiction. From their evidence as well it appears that incident occurred as narrated in the criminal complaint. It is mentioned in the complaint itself that part of the occurrence was committed outside the house of the opposite party no.2/ complainant. Hence, the incident also happened at a public place within public view, although it was not required for establishing an offence under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. The prosecution claims that the accused appellants hurled abuses to the informant with caste related remarks and also made assault upon him. Hence, the order to take cognizance in this case and the summoning order passed on the basis of evidence available on record are legally correct orders. It is also evident that in the cross- case after investigation charge sheet has been submitted.

12. 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 adduced against the appellants. 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 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 :- 8.5.2025 MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad