High Court · 2025

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (1) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'the SC/ST Act') has been preferred by the appellants- Uday Pratap Singh and Abhishek Kumar Singh with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 16.11.2021, passed by learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge SC/ST Act, Varanasi in Case Crime No. 511 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(da)(dha) & 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, P.S.- Phoolpur, Varanasi and challenging the charge sheet dated 26.02.2021 submitted against the applicants in pursuance of Case Crime No. 511 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(da) (dha) & 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, P.S.- Phoolpur, Varanasi. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the said case also the impugned summoning order.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State at length and perused the entire record.

3. The factual matrix of this case has been disclosed in the F.I.R. of the case wherein it was mentioned that with an intention to take forcible possession over the land of the informant, the named accused person Manoj Kumar Singh along with his family members, servant Jeetu and two other persons came to the field of the informant and when it was protested by the informant, they started beating him by kicking and fisting. When Abhishek Singh, son of the informant came there to rescue, he was also beaten and accused Manoj Singh, attacked upon him with a sharp edge weapon and they also threatened for life. The incident happend at 09:15 in the morning and the FIR was lodged the same day at 18:44 hours. The injured persons were medically examined on the same date and the doctor found many injuries over the body of the injured persons. During investigation, the I.O. recorded the statement of the witnessess and the doctor who medically examined the injured persons and after investigation chargesheet was submitted in the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Varanasi on 16.11.2021. Feeling aggrieved with the said chargesheet, the appellants/accused persons preferred the instant criminal appeal with a prayer to quash the chargesheet along with entire criminal proceedings.

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. It is also submitted that they never molested the opposite party no.2/ victim and the essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section SC/ST Act are completely missing in this case. It is a case of malicious prosecution and the I.O. as a matter of fact collected no evidence against the appellants and the learned trial Court has committed a grave legal error in taking the cognizance in the matter. 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 there is no evidence on record 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 to the victim of this case. It is also submitted that there is no even iota of evidence on record as collected by the I.O. that the appellants committed the alleged offence for the simple reason that the victim being a member of SC/ST community the appellants never hurled abuses to insult the victim by caste related remarks. The impugned orders suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as the learned AGA opposed the appeal and 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. From perusal of the record it appears that prima facie there is no ground to interfere with the summoning/ cognizance order as detailed above. There is cogent evidence against the appellants and the witnesses have supported the prosecution case at the time of the cognizance / summoning. The Court has not to go into deep to scrutinize and meticulously analyze the evidence on record rather it has to see only a prima facie case is made out against the appellants or not.

11. 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 sduring 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 order does not suffer from illegality, infirmity, perversity or lack of judicial mind.

12. 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.

13. In the last, learned counsel for the appellants has urged that direction for expeditious disposal of the bail application of the appellants be given in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825.

14. However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the Court below within a period of 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail may be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law by the Court concerned in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil case (supra).

15. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, then interim protection given by this Court will stand discharged and the law will take its own course. Order Date :- 25.7.2025 Anjali ANJALI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (1) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'the SC/ST Act') has been preferred by the appellants- Uday Pratap Singh and Abhishek Kumar Singh with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 16.11.2021, passed by learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge SC/ST Act, Varanasi in Case Crime No. 511 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(da)(dha) & 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, P.S.- Phoolpur, Varanasi and challenging the charge sheet dated 26.02.2021 submitted against the applicants in pursuance of Case Crime No. 511 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(da) (dha) & 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, P.S.- Phoolpur, Varanasi. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the said case also the impugned summoning order.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State at length and perused the entire record.

3. The factual matrix of this case has been disclosed in the F.I.R. of the case wherein it was mentioned that with an intention to take forcible possession over the land of the informant, the named accused person Manoj Kumar Singh along with his family members, servant Jeetu and two other persons came to the field of the informant and when it was protested by the informant, they started beating him by kicking and fisting. When Abhishek Singh, son of the informant came there to rescue, he was also beaten and accused Manoj Singh, attacked upon him with a sharp edge weapon and they also threatened for life. The incident happend at 09:15 in the morning and the FIR was lodged the same day at 18:44 hours. The injured persons were medically examined on the same date and the doctor found many injuries over the body of the injured persons. During investigation, the I.O. recorded the statement of the witnessess and the doctor who medically examined the injured persons and after investigation chargesheet was submitted in the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Varanasi on 16.11.2021. Feeling aggrieved with the said chargesheet, the appellants/accused persons preferred the instant criminal appeal with a prayer to quash the chargesheet along with entire criminal proceedings.

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. It is also submitted that they never molested the opposite party no.2/ victim and the essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section SC/ST Act are completely missing in this case. It is a case of malicious prosecution and the I.O. as a matter of fact collected no evidence against the appellants and the learned trial Court has committed a grave legal error in taking the cognizance in the matter. 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 there is no evidence on record 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 to the victim of this case. It is also submitted that there is no even iota of evidence on record as collected by the I.O. that the appellants committed the alleged offence for the simple reason that the victim being a member of SC/ST community the appellants never hurled abuses to insult the victim by caste related remarks. The impugned orders suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as the learned AGA opposed the appeal and 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. From perusal of the record it appears that prima facie there is no ground to interfere with the summoning/ cognizance order as detailed above. There is cogent evidence against the appellants and the witnesses have supported the prosecution case at the time of the cognizance / summoning. The Court has not to go into deep to scrutinize and meticulously analyze the evidence on record rather it has to see only a prima facie case is made out against the appellants or not.

11. 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 sduring 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 order does not suffer from illegality, infirmity, perversity or lack of judicial mind.

12. 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.

13. In the last, learned counsel for the appellants has urged that direction for expeditious disposal of the bail application of the appellants be given in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825.

14. However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the Court below within a period of 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail may be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law by the Court concerned in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil case (supra).

15. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, then interim protection given by this Court will stand discharged and the law will take its own course. Order Date :- 25.7.2025 Anjali ANJALI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad