Allahabad High Court
Ravi Kumar @ Ravendra Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 January, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:7567 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1182 of 2024 Appellant :- Ravi Kumar @ Ravendra Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Nasiruzzaman,Vijay Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rahul Kumar Sharma Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri. Nasiruzzaman, learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2-the victim and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (1) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Ravi Kumar @ Ravendra Kumar with the prayer to set aside the summoning order dated 20.01.2024 passed in Complaint Case No. 267 of 2021 (Jyoti Vs. Ravi Kumar @ Ravendra Kumar), under Sections 376, 506 IPC & Section 3(2)(Va) SC/ST Act, Police Station Hasayan, District Hathras pending before the learned Court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Hathras.
3. The prosecution has come forward with a case that the present accused/appellant was in friendly relation with the informant/victim of this case who belongs to SC/ST community and gradually they came nearer and accused/appellant obtained some obscene photographs and videos in respect of the victim, however, he developed physical relations with the victim on the false pretext of the marriage and ultimately he refused to marry her and now he has started threatening and blackmailing the prosecutrix. F.I.R. was lodged and investigation started, however, after investigation final report was submitted and protest petition was filed by the victim before the court. The said protest petition was treated as a criminal complaint and after completing the formalities the learned trial court passed an order summoning the accused/appellant to face trial under sections 376, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(Va) SC/ST Act.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the accused/appellant that the summoning order dated 20.01.2024 passed by the learned trial court is an illegal order. The learned trial court failed to consider the facts and circumstances of the case and also the evidence adduced by the complainant under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The said evidence was never sufficient to summon the present appellant to face trial under sections 376, 506 IPC & Section 3(2)(Va) SC/ST Act. It is further submitted that the learned trial court totally discarded this factual aspect of this case that the Investigating Officer during the entire investigation found no evidence at all to connect the present appellant with the alleged offence. The evidence adduced before the court concerned under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. was not reliable and sufficient to pass a summoning order against the appellant. The medical examination of the victim was conducted after 12 days of the alleged incident without explaining reason for delay. The F.I.R. was lodged belatedly and the witnesses examined before the court were family members of opposite party no. 2, the victim. On the aforesaid grounds the prayer has been made to set aside the impugned summoning order dated 20.01.2024.
5. Per contra learned A.G.A. and learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2-the victim vehemently opposed the present appeal. It is submitted that the learned trial court was competent enough to treat the protest petition filed by the informant against the final report submitted by the police. The Court concerned was capable of treating the protest petition as a criminal complaint case and that was well within the jurisdiction of the court. It is further submitted that on the basis of the evidence adduced under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. before the court the offence under sections 376, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(Va) SC/ST Act is clearly made out against the appellant. The appellant very well knew that the victim belonged to SC/ST community. There is no illegality in the summoning order dated 20.01.2024 and the appeal having no course is liable to be dismissed.
6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully.
7. It is trite law that in a police challani case, if on the basis of insufficient or no evidence the Investigating Officer submits a final/closure report to the court, this is the duty of the court to issue notice to the informant of the case to afford him an opportunity of hearing and the informant, if appears before the court he may either file a protest petition against the final report or may make a prayer to the court to accept the final report. This is the bounden duty of the court to peruse the entire case diary and the contents of the protest petition filed by the informant and to search out the irregularities, negligence, omission or other short comings committed by the Investigating Officer during the investigation and, if it is so, the Magistrate is empowered to reject the final report and treat the protest petition as a criminal complaint and to follow the procedure relating to a complaint case. He is also empowered to summon the accused persons straightway under the relevant sections by rejecting the final report submitted by the police. He is further empowered to pass an order for further investigation in the matter.
8. The conclusion drawn on the basis of co-joint reading of Nirmaljit Singh Hoon Vs. State of West Bengal, (1973) 3 SCC 753: 1973 SCC (Cri) 521; See also all Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prakash Chandra Bose, AIR 1963 SC 1430; Nagawwa Vs. Veerappa Shivalingappa Koujalgi, (1976) 3 SCC 736: 1976 SCC (Cri) 507; Sripat Sahai Vs. Ganpat Sahai, 1979 AII Cr C 127 (All) is that:-
"The words "sufficient ground" used in Section 203 have been construed to mean the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the person accused by the evidence of witnesses entitled to a reasonable degree of credit, and not sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction."
9. So far as the case in hand is concerned, F.I.R. was lodged by the informant/victim against the named persons under sections 376, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(Va) SC/ST Act and investigation started. Admittedly a closure report under section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted by the Investigating Officer after investigation. The informant was afforded an opportunity of hearing and notice was sent to her. Later on enjoying her right to oppose the final report, a protest petition was preferred by the complainant. The learned trial court proceeded to make a hearing on final report and protest petition and opined that the case in hand deserves to be inquired into by the court itself and on this basis the protest petition submitted by the complainant was treated as a criminal complaint. Further statement of complainant was recorded under sections 200 Cr.P.C. and trial court also recorded the statement of Smt. Guddi Devi and Vineet Kumar PW-1 and PW-2 under section 202 Cr.P.C. who happened to be the mother and brother of complainant. The copies of the statements are on record, a perusal of which it reveals that specific allegation of committing rape repeatedly has been made against the present appellant by the prosecutrix in her statement under section 200 Cr.P.C. wherein she also affirms that she is a member of SC/ST community. PW-1 Guddi Devi, the mother of the informant, also affirms the same facts and states that the factum of rape committed by the accused with her daughter by way of blackmailing her on the basis of some obscene photographs and videos was disclosed by her daughter to her and then she went to the police to lodge the report. In the same manner Vineet Kumar PW-2 also narrates the same story. It was also stated by the aforesaid witnesses that although the police lodged the F.I.R. in this case but under influence of the accused, a closure report was filed in this matter.
10. Section 204 of Cr.P.C. governs the matter of issue of process in a complaint case and it provides that if in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizane of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall issue the process for the attendance of the accused either in the form of summons or warrant.
11. The law on the subject is well settled that the Magistrate is empowered to pass an order on the point of summoning of an accused in a complaint case on the basis of evidence available before the court under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., if it finds that the evidence aforesaid is sufficient to summon the accused and, if the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint.
12. It is to be borne in mind that the court has not to satisfy itself on the basis of evidence under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., as to whether the said evidence is sufficient to record conviction of the accused rather it denotes a prima facie satisfaction of the Magistrate to proceed with the matter against the accused. In the aforesaid case laws, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to explain the word "sufficient ground" used in section 203 Cr.P.C. and it was held that the words "sufficient ground" used in Section 203 have been construed to mean the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the accused by the evidence of witnesses entitled to a reasonable degree of credit, and not sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction."
13. The impugned order shows that the learned Special Court perused the statement under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C but other materials available on record and recorded his prima facie satisfaction that sufficient grounds exist to proceed against the accused and passed the impugned order. It is to be noted that the statement of other witnesses, the medical report in respect of the victim and some other evidence, the statement of the victim herself recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.PC, the copy of final report etc. were available before the court concerned and on the basis of all the material and evidence the summoning order dated 20.01.2024 was passed. I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 20.01.2024. The appeal has no force and the same is liable to be dismissed.
14. The criminal appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.1.2025 Vikram