Allahabad High Court
Mohammad Saleem Khan ( Saleem In F.I.R.) ... vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 20 July, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 ALL 1603
Author: Saroj Yadav
Bench: Saroj Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Reserved Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 48 of 2021 Appellant :- Mohammad Saleem Khan ( Saleem In F.I.R.) & Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Indrajeet Shukla,Shamim Arif Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.
1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 14 (1) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'SC/ST Act') against the impugned order dated 1.12.2020 taking cognizance and impugned summoning order dated 10.12.2020 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Shrawasti in Case No.263 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No.133/2020, under Section 504, 506, 411, 392 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (Da) (Dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Ikauna, District Shrawasti.
2. The facts relevant for disposal of this appeal in short are as under :-
3. An F.I.R. No.0133 of 2020 was registered against the appellant/accused on the basis of written complaint moved by the complainant Kesari Kumar with the allegation that there was a 'Sakhu' tree in his field and that fell down in storm. After getting a permit from the authority concerned, he cut that down on 9/10.2.2020, but could not take that away due to night. He was there for guarding timber alongwith his father Nankau Prasad and friend Nanku @ Rafeeq. At about 1.00 a.m. in the same night, Saleem and Alamgeer came there with J.C.B. and trolley and started picking up the timber. When he objected, they abused him using castiest words and threatened to kill him. Thereafter they forcibly took away the timber.
4. After Investigation, the chargesheet was submitted under Sections 504, 506, 411 and 392 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (Da) and (Dha) of S.C./ST Act. On the basis of the chargesheet, the court concerned took cognizance of the matter and issued summons against the appellants/accused persons.
5. Being aggrieved of the order, this appeal has been preferred.
6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that no case is made out against the accused persons under Sections 504, 506, 411, 392 I.P.C. and specially under Section 3(1) (Da) and (Dha) of S.C./ST Act. Learned court below has not applied its legal mind and passed the order in a cursory manner so it should be set aside.
8. Contrary to it, learned A.G.A. submitted that on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by the complainant disclosing the cognizable offence, investigation was made. After investigation, Investigating Officer submitted the chargesheet after finding prima facie evidence against the appellants. The court concerned took the cognizance of the matter on the basis of the chargesheet and material submitted before it.
9. It has also been submitted by learned A.G.A. that there is clear mention in the F.I.R. that the appellants abused the complainant using castiest words. The impugned order is perfectly legal and shows the application of mind by the court below.
10. Considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
11. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned court below after perusing the documents submitted by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that there is sufficient documentary evidence to take cognizance. At the time of taking cognizance the concerned court is not obliged to give detailed reasons for his satisfaction.
12. In Bhushan Kumar and another Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another : (2012) 5 SCC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :-
"11. In Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Ltd. (SCC p 499, para 19) the expression "cognizance" was explained by this Court as "it merely means 'become aware of' and when used with reference to a court or a Judge, it connotes 'to take notice of judicially'. It indicates the point when a court or a Magistrate takes judicial notice of an offence with a view to initiating proceedings in respect of such offence said to have been committed by someone." It is entirely a different thing from initiation of proceedings; rather it is the condition precedent to the initiation of proceedings by the Magistrate or the Judge. Cognizance is taken of cases and not of persons. Under Section 190 of the Code, it is the application of judicial mind to the averments in the complaint that constitutes cognizance. 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 enquiry. If there is sufficient ground for proceeding then the Magistrate is empowered for issuance of process under Section 204 of the Code."
13. Furthermore, there remains an opportunity with the appellants to submit before the concerned court at the time of framing of charge, whether offences for which cognizance has been taken made out or not.
14. In the light of the above discussions, there appears no ground for interference in the impugned order.
15. The appeal deserves dismissal and it is accordingly dismissed.