Sunil Kumar Srivas v. Devi Deyal Sahu and others), under Sections
Case Details
Court No. - 88 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8544 of 2022 Appellant :- Devi Dayal Sahu And 2 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Virendra Singh Parmar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This appeal has been preferred under section 14 A (1) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as SC/ST Act) against the summoning order dated 18.01.2020, passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hamirpur, in Special
Legal Reasoning
and baseless allegations and thus, no prima facie case is made out against appellants. It is also submitted that the complainant has not filed the list of witnesses in terms of Section 204 (2) CrPC. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that impugned order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside. 4. Learned A.G.A and learned counsel for respondent No.2 have opposed the appeal and argued that there are allegations against appellants that on 20.11.2018 at about 10.00 AM, they have abused the complainant, who is a member of scheduled caste, by using caste indicative words and assaulted him and that this version is supported by the complainant in his statement under Section 200 CrPC and it was further supported by the witnesses under Section 202 CrPC. It was submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. 5. I have considered rival submissions and perused record. 6. 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 levelled 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. 7. 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." 8. 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. 9. In the instant matter, perusal of record shows that respondent No.2 has filed the complaint against appellants alleging that on 20.11.2018 at 10.00 AM, while he was passing his vehicle through C.C. road of village, some animals were lying tied on the road and when the complainant asked to take away the animals, he was abused by the appellants by using caste indicative words and he was assaulted by them. This version is supported by the complainant in his statement under Section 200 CrPC. Two witnesses namely, Smt. Chunoobad and Laxmi Narayan have also supported this version in their statements under Section 202 CrP.C. It is well settled that at the stage of summoning only it is to be seen whether prima facie case for proceeding further against the accused is made out or not. In the instant matter considering entire facts and evidence on record, it cannot be said that said impugned order is suffering from any illegality, perversity or error of jurisdiction. Hence, the prayer for quashing of impugned order is refused. 10. However, considering facts of the matter, it is directed that in case the appellants surrender before the court below within a period of three weeks from today and apply for bail, their bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with settled law including the law laid down in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825. 11. With the aforesaid observations, the instant appeal is
Arguments
Complaint Case No.15 of 2019 (Sunil Kumar Srivas vs. Devi Deyal Sahu and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(da) and 3(1)(dha) SC/ST Act, P.S. Sumerpur, District Hamirpur, whereby, the appellants have been summoned for aforesaid offences. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that impugned order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside. It was submitted that the respondent No.2 has lodged complaint of this case making false and baseless allegations. In fact only some hot talk has taken place between the parties and regarding that incident, both the parties were challaned by the police under Section 151 CrPC but later on the respondent No.2 has moved an application under Section 156 (3) CrPC making false
Decision
disposed off. Order Date :- 25.1.2023 Neeraj Digitally signed by :- NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad