Allahabad High Court
Taufique Raza Shaikh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 May, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:108072 Court No. - 81 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4285 of 2023 Appellant :- Taufique Raza Shaikh And 2 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :-Sadhu Sharan,Ajay Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ram Sumer Chaudhary Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
Heard Sri Sadhu Sharan, learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. as well as Sri P.S. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.
The instant Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been moved by the appellants- Taufique Raza Shaikh, Jainuddin @ Jainuabidin and Lalu @ Edarish with the prayer to allow this appeal and set aside the impugned summoning order dated 1.11.2022 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Banda in Special Criminal Case No. 203 of 2022 (State Versus Taufique and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 111 of 2022 and charge sheet dated 22.06.2022, under Section 353, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)da, 3(1) dha, 3(2)5A Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station- Naraini, District-Banda.
Learned counsel for the appellants while drawing the attention of this Court towards the charge sheet which has been filed under Section 353, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)da, 3(1)dha, 3(2)5A and also the summoning order dated 01.11.2022, whereby appellants have been summoned under Section 353, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)da, 3(1)dha, 3(2)5A SC/ST Act vehemently submits that the Special Court has committed manifest illegality in taking the cognizance with regard to the offence under Section 354 I.P.C. as there was no allegation pertaining to the ingredients of Section 354 I.P.C. as allegations were with regard to Section 353 I.P.C. and the charge sheet has also been filed under Section 353 I.P.C. Thus, the cognizance taking order as well as summoning order is patently illegal and is liable to set aside.
Various submissions have also been raised by learned counsel for the appellants in order to show that even Section 353 of I.P.C. may not be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Learned A.G.A. however supported the impugned order but is agreement that mentioning of Section 354 of I.P.C. in the cognizance taking order and summoning order may be due to inadvertent error/mistake.
Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 has also fairly consented that mentioning of Section 354 in the cognizance taking order and summoning order has erupted in the impugned order due to inadvertent mistake of the trial Court.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that initially the F.I.R. of the instant case was lodged under Section 353, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)da, 3(1)dha, 3(2)5A SC/ST Act after investigation the charge sheet has also been filed under Section 353, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)da, 3(1)dha, 3(2)5A SC/ST Act. The cognizance taking order has been passed by the Special Court on the charge sheet itself, wherein amongst other penal sections Section 354 I.P.C. has also been mentioned while Section 353 I.P.C. has not been mentioned. Similar is the situation with the impugned order dated 01.11.2022. Thus, it appears that mentioning of Section 354 I.P.C.in the cognizance taking order as well as in summoning order dated 01.11.2022 is due to the inadvertent mistake of the Special Court. The law in this regard is well settled that no party should suffer from any mistake committed by the Court inadvertently.
Thus, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of case, the prayer of learned counsel for the appellants with regard to the quashing of the whole of cognizance taking order and summoning order in totality is hereby refused.
The appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed and the cognizance taking order and summoning order dated 01.11.2022 passed by the Special Court is modified to the tune that the appellants present before this Court shall now stand summoned under Sections 353, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)da, 3(1)dha, 3(2)5A SC/ST Act.
At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the offences within which the appellants have been summoned are punishable with upto 7 years of imprisonment and the appellants have cooperated in the investigation and the charge sheet has been filed without making arrest of them, thus appropriate directions be given to the trial court with regard to the expeditious disposal of their bail application, which they are intending to move before the trial court, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : (2021) 10 SCC 773.
Keeping in view the fact that the offences wherein appellants have been summoned are punishable with upto 7 years of imprisonment and appellants were not arrested during the course of investigation and having perused the record, the instant appeal is disposed of with the direction to the learned trial court that if the appellants appear/surrender before the trial court within 30 days from today and move applications for bail under Section 437/439 Cr.P.C., the trial court shall dispose of the same after providing opportunity of being heard to the parties, strictly in accordance with law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra) with utmost expedition.
Order Date :- 17.5.2023 Imtiyaz