Allahabad High Court
Sunil And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 April, 2022
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 91 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21512 of 2021 Applicant :- Sunil And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Vikram Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mukesh Kumar Maurya Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.
Heard Sri Ajay Vikram Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Mukesh Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Sushma Soni, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the complaint dated 19.3.2018 as well as summoning order dated 30.9.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A) Act, Mainpuri in Complaint Case No. 150 of 2018 (Birma Devi Vs. Sunil and others) under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1) Da & Dha SC/ST (P.A.) Act, 1989, P.S. Dannahar, District Mainpuri.
The O.P. No.2 filed a complaint dated 17.3.2018/19.3.2018 alleging therein that on 21.3.2018 at 7:00 A.M. when complainant was sitting outside her house on a cot then accused persons passing through the lane objected by passing castiest remarks. When complainant resisted then they went away giving threats. On the same day at 10:00 a.m. accused persons armed with lathi and danda came and entered into the house of complainant, pulled her, fell down her and assaulted her with lathi and danda saying her name with caste and that how she dare to sit on a cot. The complainant went to lodge the FIR but it was not registered. Her medical examination was conducted on 2.2.2018 and thereafter she sent a registered application on 5.2.20218 to S.S.P. Mainpuri but no action was taken. After inquiry U/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the learned Special Judge by the impugned order dated 30.9.2019 has summoned the applicants for the offence under section 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1) Da & Dha SC/ST (P.A.) Act.
The contentions of learned counsel for the applicants are that according to allegations of the FIR the incident has occurred inside the house and not in a public view, hence, no offence under Provision of SC/ST Act is made out. Learned counsel placed reliance on the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another in Criminal Appeal No. 707 of 2020 Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 3585 of 2020). It is also contended that the alleged incident is of 31.1.2018 while the medical examination has been conducted on 2.2.2018 and complaint has been lodged after more than one month and a half. It is further contended that earlier an FIR Crime No. 0003 of 2018, under section 363, 366, 120B and 504 IPC and 7/8 POCSO Act.was lodged by applicant no. 3 against the son of O.P. No. 2 Balram Just to pressurize the applicants a false complaint has been lodged with concocted story. It is also contended that all the injuries are manipulated. The applicant nos. 1 and 2 are real brothers and applicant no. 3 is their father. From the bare perusal of the complaint as well as statements of the witnesses there is no cogent material placed before the learned Judge to proceed against the applicants. Therefore, the entire consequential proceedings are illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eye of law. The learned Special Judge neither inquired into the case himself nor directed for any investigation to be made by a police officer or any other authority prior to passing the summoning order. The story alleged in the complaint as well as statements of witnesses are highly improbable and no prudent person would believe on the said story. Mandatory provisions of Section 204 Cr.P.C. has not been complied with.
Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. contended that in support of allegations of the complaint the complainant examined herself and produced two witnesses who have corroborated the allegations of the complaint. There is medico legal report of the complainant showing visible injuries on her body and it corresponds with the time of incident. On the basis of evidence produced before the court, learned Special Judge being satisfied that a prima facie case is made out, has passed the summoning order, hence, there is no illegality in the summoning order.
The contents of the complaint discloses a cognizable offence. In the complaint two incidents of the same day have been narrated. First one is of outside the house and of a public place while the second one is of inside the house, so it can not be said that Provision of SC/ST Act are not attracted. There is also injury report supporting the oral evidence. Being satisfied with the material on record the learned Special Judge has came to the conclusion that a prima facie case is made out and passed the summoning order. It is settled principle of law that at this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen as laiddown by Supreme Court in the case of Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The other arguments as assailed by the learned counsel for the applicants are all matter of facts which can not be considered and adjudicated in a proceeding U/s 482 Cr.P.C. There is nothing on record to show that the complaint is an abuse of the process of law and summoning and continuation of proceeding is an abuse of the process of the Court. There is no illegality in the impugned summoning order.
The application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
Learned counsel for the applicants prayed that a direction be issued to the trial court for expeditious disposal of the bail application in view of guidelines propounded in Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and ors, reported in 202 (4) Crimes 139 (SC) case.
However, if the applicants move any bail application before the court concerned, it shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with settled principle of law propounded by Hon'ble Apex Court.
Order Date :- 4.4.2022 Masarrat