Allahabad High Court
Jitendra Nath Mishra vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 June, 2022
Author: Rajnish Kumar
Bench: Rajnish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 45 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 303 of 2022 Appellant :- Jitendra Nath Mishra Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Manoj Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and perused the material placed on record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14A(1) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been filed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 16.10.2021 passed by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Sant Kabir Nagar in Special Sessions Trial No. 354 of 2018 (State Vs. Dharmendra Nath Mishra) arising out of Case Crime No. 177 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (Da) and 3(1) (Dha) of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment, 2015), Police Station - Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar by which the appellant has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. On account of some dispute in regard to the financial transaction between the informant and the brother of the appellant Dharmendra Nath Mishra, the cross cases were lodged earlier by both parties. He further submitted that the appellant is an Advocate and since he is doing Pairvi of the case of his brother, therefore, the appellant has falsely been implicated. He further submitted that the informant knew the appellant as he had been his Advocate earlier but his name was not disclosed in the First Information Report and brother of Dharmendra Nath Mishra was stated and that appellant has four brothers. He further submitted that during investigation the informant had specifically stated in his supplementary statement that he had disclosed the brother of Dharmendra Nath Mishra as he had an apprehension that he was supporting his brother but without considering it the appellant has been summoned by means of the impugned order.
Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 opposed the submission of learned counsel for appellant. He submitted that merely because the appellant is an Advocate, cannot absolve him of the allegations. It has not been disputed by the appellant that there is dispute between the brother of appellant and the informant, therefore, supporting the appellant in the crime cannot be ruled out at this stage. He further submitted that the appellant had only filled the form of the wife of the informant for the post of Jila Panchayat Member in the year 2015, on account of which it cannot be said that informant knew the appellant and his name. The informant had specifically mentioned in the FIR that the bother of Dharmendra Nath Mishra had also been there along with him. He further submitted that the learned trial court after considering the evidence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 has summoned the appellant and the appellant has failed to point out any illegality or error in the impugned order.
Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for parties, I have perused the records. The FIR was lodged by the opposite party no.2 alleging therein that Dharmendra Nath Mishra along with one of his brother had abused the informant and used caste abusive word. It has specifically been stated in the First Information Report that Dharmendra Nath Mishra along with brother had beaten the informant, abused and left the place of occurrence and threatened the appellant. In the evidence before the trial court, the P.W.-1 has specifically supported the FIR version. The Specific allegations have been made against the appellant of beating and threatening the informant. In the cross-examination nothing could be culled out so as to doubt the evidence of P.W.-1 at this stage. P.W.-2 has also supported the evidence of P.W.-1. Therefore, merely because some supplementary statement was given during investigation and the appellant is an Advocate and doing Pairvi of his brother's case cannot be grounds to quash the impugned order. So far as the knowledge of the name of the appellant to the informant is concerned, it has come in the evidence that he had filled the form of wife of the informant for the post of Jila Panchayat in the year 2015 and the alleged incident is of 30.9.2017. Therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that because the name of the appellant was not disclosed in the FIR, he cannot be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C., whereas in the FIR it was disclosed that one of the brother of Dharmendra Nath Mishra was accompanying. Though the charge sheet was not filed against the appellant however, after considering the evidence adduced before the trial court, the trial court has rightly summoned the appellant because specific allegations have been made against him.
In view of above, this Court is of the view that the appeal is misconceived and the grounds taken by the appellant for impugning the impugned order are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Thus the appeal is misconceived and devoid of merits. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.6.2022/Md Faisal