Allahabad High Court
Ram Prakash vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 December, 2019
Author: Rahul Chaturvedi
Bench: Rahul Chaturvedi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 67 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44406 of 2019 Applicant :- Ram Prakash Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Sengar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Sri Ajay Sengar, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
By means of the present 482 Cr.P.C. application, the prayer sought by the applicant is to quash/set aside the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 56 of 2018 (SST No. 06 of 2019) (Ram Babu vs. Ram Prakash and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali- Orai, District Jalaun, pending in the court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jalaun at Orai.
The order for judicial scrutiny is the aforementioned summoning order. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court and argued the case that at the behest of the local politicians opposite party no. 2 has filed present complaint case which is annexed as annexure-1 to the application.
I have carefully gone through the version of the case in which it has been stated in paragraph no. 1 of the complaint that the complainant belongs to Basor caste, which comes within Scheduled Caste community and on the other hand, opposite parties belong to Yadav community and they are influential persons of the locality. On 16.11.2018, when the victim went to road side tea shop for having tea, all of a sudden Ram Prakash (applicant), Munna and Shivendra @ Arjun of village Jaganpura, who are relative of Udai Chandra Yadav of his village were sitting on the bench. The victim has requested them to give some space over the bench, infuriated by this request of the victim, Ram Prakash along with other persons started hurling filthy abuses by taking the caste name of complainant in most humiliating way. Since the place of incident was road side tea shop, obviously, it was in public view, witnessed by number of persons and when objected by the complainant, all of them started assaulting him by kicks and fists along with lathi danda. This incident was witnessed by Rohit Panchal and Satrughna. Thereafter, they have extended threat to his life. In this incident the complainant had sustained injuries, report of which has been annexed as annexure-2 to the application.
Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that impugned summoning order dated 30.04.2019 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Jalaun at Orai suffers from manifest error of law in as many as such Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of SC/ST Act only attracts when the offence is done by the member, who did not belong to the SC/ST community and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate the member of a Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribe in any place of public view.
Learned counsel for applicant has drawn the attention of the Court in the observation made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of A.P. (2008) 12 SCC 531. The relevant paragraph of this judgment is as under:-
"6... According to the basic ingredients of Section 3 (1) )x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the appellant-accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (Respondent 3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere is it mentioned that the appellant-accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate Respondent 3 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law".
I have carefully gone through the entire complaint and statements of the witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. including injury report of the injured dated 16.11.2018 itself at 05.05 p.m. From the complaint it is clearly born out that in paragraph 1 of the complaint it has been stated that the applicant belongs to "Basor" community whereas opposite party nos. 1, 2 and 3 are belong to "Yadav community" and they have assaulted by kicks and fists to the victim/ complainant and they have used filthy language and abused him by taken his caste name and intentionally humiliated him. Therefore, the requirement of law laid down in the case of Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of A.P. (supra) are squarely made out did not suffer from any illegality and improbability.
I have carefully perused the order impugned which also did not have any illegality or perversity in passing the summoning order.
The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to the applicant to appear/surrender before the court below within 30 days.
After arguing the case for quite some time at length and pitted against certain observations made by the Court, learned counsel for the applicant himself has given up to address the Court on merits of the case and prayed, that the purpose of his client would suffice, if a direction may be given to the courts below to decide his bail application within specific time frame.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced, this Court is of the opinion that since learned counsel for the applicant has already given up that he does not want to press the case on merit, in the fitness of circumstances, this 482 Cr.P.C. application stands dismissed with the direction that the court below would extend the benefit of interim bail (if the court concerned deems it fit according to the merit of each case) as contemplated in the law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. after the applicants surrender within 30 days before the court and if his bail application is filed, the same shall be adjudicated and decided by the courts below with speaking and reasoned order, strictly in accordance with law, in the light of the judgment given by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hussain and another Vs. Union of India reported in (2017) 5 SCC Page-702, relevant extract of which reads as under :-
"?.......Judicial service as well as legal service are not like any other services. They are missions for serving the society. The mission is not achieved if the litigant who is waiting in the queue does not get his turn for a long time"....... "Decision of cases of under-trials in custody is one of the priority areas. There are obstructions at every level in enforcement of right of speedy trial; vested interests or unscrupulous elements try to delay the proceedings"....... "In spite of all odds, determined efforts are required at every level for success of the mission"..... "The Presiding Officer of a court cannot rest in a state of helplessness. This is the constitutional responsibility of the State to provide necessary infrastructure and of the High Courts to monitor the functioning of subordinate courts to ensure timely disposal of cases."
To satiate speedy disposal of the cases, the courts below are issued following directions in accordance with the observations made in the case of Hussain and another (Supra):
(i)Bail applications be disposed of normally within one week :
(ii) Magisterial trials, where accused are in custody, be normally concluded within six months and sessions trials where accused are in custody be normally concluded within two years.
(iii).......................................................................................................;
(iv)......................................................................................................."
The above timelines may be the touchstone for assessment of judicial performance in annual confidential reports.
For the period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforementioned case.
It is made clear that no time extension application would be entertained for extending the period of 30 days.
The ratio mentioned above is the last word for every judicial officers for abiding with the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the aforesaid scenario, it would be pertinent to refer the case of Brahm Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 08.07.2016 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.15609 of 2016 whereby co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while taking into account the concerns of most of the counsels with regard to the long pending bail applications at lower courts' stage has expressed their anguish and concern.
In the aforesaid backdrop, learned Sessions Judge/the concerned Trial Judge is directed to ensure that the guidelines given in the case of Hussain and another (supra) as well as in Brahm Singh and others(Supra) has to be carried out in its letter and spirit, failing which an adverse inference would be drawn against the erring officers and this Court would be compelled to take appropriate action against them, if found that there is laxity in adhering the above directions.
In the event, the bail application is not decided within seven days as contemplated above, the learned Judge will have to spell out the justifiable reasons and record the same on the order sheet of such cases.
Order Date :- 11.12.2019 v.k.updh.