Appeal filed beyond time against a summoning order under Section 14A(1) of SC/ST Act. Delay condoned. Court refused to quash summoning order as disputed facts cannot be adjudicated at this stage.
Appeal dismissed; summoning order not quashed; delay condoned.
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 DEFECTIVE No. - 1066 of 2019
Appellant :- Sunil Jaiswal And 5 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Dharm Jeet Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
This Criminal Appeal has been filed beyond time by 26 days.
The cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application is sufficient.
The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14A(1) of SC/ST Act has been filed by the appellants with the prayer to set-aside the impugned summoning order dated 27.5.2019 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge SC/ST Act Ballia in complaint case No. 55/17, Lallan Ram Vs. Shiv Narayan Jaiswal and others under section 147, 323, 504, 506, 406 I.P.C. and 3(1) (d) of SC/ST Act P.S. Nagara, District Ballia.
As per the allegations made in the complaint, it is alleged that the victim was working as a daily wage worker at the brick Kiln of Shiv Narayan and his wage was due upon Shiv Narayan and on 4.8.2017 at abut 5.00 p.m. the victim had gone at the house of Shiv Narayan to ask for payment of his wages, however, Shiv Narayan did not pay his due wages and on protest raised by the victim, on the exhortation of Shiv Narayan, the appellants abused the victim with the name of his caste with an intention to humiliate and intimidate him in public view and also assaulted him by Lathi, Hockey, Danda and kicks and fists. On account of assault made by the appellants the victim suffered injuries and has been medically examined.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that from the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of enquiry, no offence is disclosed against the applicants and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention, as such, the summoning order be quashed.
Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint and the material collected during the course of enquiry, prima facie
offence is clearly made out against the appellants and as such, the summoning order cannot be quashed.
Moreover, all the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 14A(1) of SC/ST Act. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing the summoning order is therefore refused.
However, it is directed that if the appellants appear/surrender before the court below and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
With the aforesaid observations, this criminal appeal is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 24.9.2019
R
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay condonation application should be allowed given the 26-day oversight.
Whether this court can adjudicate disputed questions of fact at the stage of a criminal appeal under Section 14A(1) of SC/ST Act.
Whether the prima facie case disclosed in the complaint warrants quashing of the summoning order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶14
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶14
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. SharmaReferred¶14
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cri.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherReferred¶14
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sunil Jaiswal And 5 Ors.
State Of U.P.
Rajiv Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
