High Court
Case Details
1 Court No. - 88 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9741 of 2022 Appellant :- Shyam Singh And 4 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ravi Shankar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Preet Pal Singh Rathore Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 14-A (1) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST Act') for quashing of proceedings and the summoning order dated 22.11.2022, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Budaun in Complaint No. 100 of 2022, under Sections 452, 324, 504 IPC and Section 3(1)x of SC/ST Act, Police Station Ushait, District Budaun, whereby the appellants have been summoned for offences under Sections 452, 324, 504 IPC and Section 3(1)x of SC/ST Act. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellants that respondent No. 2 has filed the complaint of this case making false and baseless allegations. In fact regarding an incident of 07.09.2021, the wife of
Facts
appellant no. 3 Udaiveer, namely, Kallo Devi has lodged a first information report under Sections 323, 324, 427 IPC against the complainant of this case (respondent no. 2) and others and in that incident, said Kallo Devi has sustained two injuries. The complaint of this case was made as a counterblast to the said case lodged by the wife of appellant no. 3. In the injury report of complainant/respondent no. 2, only one injury has been shown, which is incised wound and simple in nature and another injured has also sustained one simple injury. The alleged injury reports have been procured in connivance with the concerned doctor. Only general allegations have been levelled against all the appellants. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that no case for summoning of appellants is made out and thus, the impugned summoning order and proceedings are liable to be quashed. 2 4.
Legal Reasoning
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:- 3 "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. At this stage, it would be appropriate to quote the provisions of Section 3(1) x of SC/ST Act, which reads as follows:- “(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;” 10. In the instant case, perusal of record shows that the complainant has lodged complaint against the appellants, alleging that on 05.10.2021 at 6.00 PM they trespassed into his house and abused him by using caste indicative words and they have also assaulted him and his mother Shushila Devi. The same allegations were made by the complainant in his statement, recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Similarly the witnesses, namely, Shushila, Badan Singh and Ramvilas, examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C., have also stated that alleged incident took place inside the house of complainant. From the complaint and statements of complainant and of witnesses, it appear that the incident took place inside the house of complainant. There is no evidence to show that alleged incident took place in public view. In view of these facts and circumstances of the matter, no case under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act is made out. Though the court below has also observed in the impugned summoning order that accused-appellants have trespassed in the house of complainant and committed the incident but despite that the court below has summoned the accused-appellants under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act. It 4 appears that the trial court did not consider the matter in correct perspective and thus, impugned order warrants interference. 11. Consequently, the summoning of accused-appellants under Section 3(1) x of SC/ST Act is quashed. However, the summoning of accused- appellants under Sections 452, 324, 504 IPC is upheld. The impugned order stand altered to this extent. The case against appellants/accused under Sections 452, 324, 504 IPC shall proceed before the competent court, in accordance with law. 12. The instant appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order Date :- 09.2.2023 Anand Digitally signed by :- ANAND VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
On the other hand, learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for the complainant/respondent no. 2 have opposed the appeal and argued that there are allegations against the appellants that they have abused the complainant by using caste indicative words and they have also assaulted him and his mother Shushila Devi. This version is supported by the complainant in his statement, recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and by the witnesses, recoded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. It was submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned summoning order. 5. I have considered rival submissions and perused the record. 6.