The disposal of a criminal appeal against the rejection of a complaint in a Scheduled Caste case under Section 14A of the Prevention of Atrocities Act. The Single Judge held that the lower court correctly applied its judicial mind, found no merit in the appeal, and dismissed it.
No relief; the criminal appeal was dismissed in the interest of justice.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2637 of 2019
Appellant :- Kamla Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Rajendra Kumar Dubey,Santosh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
This criminal appeal under Section 14 A(1) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed against the impugned order dated 8.2.2019 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge-II/Special Judge SC/ST Act, Farrukhabad in Complaint Case No. 29/12/2018, by which the learned Magistrate has rejected the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. and after aggrieved this order the instant appeal has been filed.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. at great length.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned lower court has not considered the evidence led by the complainant and the witnesses under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.
Perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned lower court has very well discussed the evidence led by the complainant in her statement under Section 200 and the witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and the learned lower court has opined that whatsoever has been said by the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. that has not find support from the witnesses led by the complainant under Section 202 Cr.P.C. It has been further mentioned by learned lower court in its order that the proposed accused are the son, father and uncle. Learned lower court has further opined that the persons who are alleged to have witnessed the occurrence and who were named in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. were not examined. On the other hand the complainant has examined her family members.
Learned lower court has also mentioned that there is allegation of beating the complainant and her family with lathi-danda by five persons but the complainant and her
family members had not received any fatal injury. The medical report does not support the prosecution case. The learned lower court has also mentioned in the impugned order that the accused persons were roped due to their proximity with the opponent of the complainant side.
The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in the case of Anil Kumar vs. M.K. Aiyappa reported in 2013 (10) SCC 705, in which Hon'ble Apex Court has opined that while disposing the application submitted under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and while taking cognizance in complaint case the Magistrate should have applied its judicial minds and the Hon'ble Apex Court has further reiterated in the case of Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. vs. State Of U.P.& Ors. , in which Hon'ble Apex Court has opined that while passing the summoning order on a complaint the learned Magistrate should have scrutinized the evidence carefully and should have applied the judicial mind to ascertain the veracity and truthfulness of the complaint.
After having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perusal of the impugned order as well as the other material brought on record, I am of the view that no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned lower court while passing the impugned order.
The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.5.2019 Faridul
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned lower court committed any illegality or infirmity in rejecting the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. in a Scheduled Caste/ST case.
Whether the Magistrate applied the judicial mind while scrutinizing the evidence and witnesses under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Anil Kumar vs. M.K. AiyappaReferred¶11
Anil Kumar vs. M.K. Aiyappa reported in 2013 (10) SCC 705 · Who else cites this
Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. vs. State Of U.P.& Ors.Referred¶11
Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. vs. State Of U.P.& Ors.
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Kamla Devi
State Of U.P.
Ajit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
