In this criminal appeal, the Special Judge of the SC/ST Act summoned the appellants in a complaint case alleging offences under the SC/ST Act and IPC. The High Court held that the lower court correctly found a prima facie case based on the complaint and statements, and rejected the appeal.
The appeal filed by the appellants was rejected.
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. - 89
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2994 of 2022
Appellant :- Dr. Suhel And 3 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sunil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Chaman Aara
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
The appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 14.12.2021 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Saharanpur in Complaint Case No. 1518 of 2021 "Vikram Singh Vs. Dr. Suhel and Others" u/s 323/504/506 I.P.C. and section 3(1)da SC/ST Act, 1989, Police StationGangoh, District Saharanpur, whereby court below has summoned the appellants.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned A. G.A. for the State and learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2. Perused the record of the case.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that impugned summoning order dated 14.12.2021 by which on a complaint case filed by respondent no. 2, the cognizance has been taken and the accused persons/appellants have been summoned u/s 323/504/506 I.P.C. and section 3(1)da of SC/ST Act. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case and there is no material evidence available on record and trial court without application of judicial mind as well as without considering the material available on record wrongly passed the impugned order.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the submission of the appellants by submitting that court below after going through all the facts available on record, prima facie offence is made out against the appellants, passed the impugned cognizance and summoning order dated 14.12.2021 u/s 323/504/506 I.P.C. and section 3(1)da of SC/ST Act.
On due consideration to the argument advanced on the facts, particularly the complaint filed by the respondent no. 2 and statement of the complainant recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. dated 1.9.2021 and statement of Anuj Kumar (PW-1) recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C. reveals prima facie commission of offence by appellant nos. 1 to 4. At the stage of taking cognizance the Magistrate is required to see if there is prima facie case for taking cognizance or in the copy of the complaint and statement u/s 200 and 202
Cr.P.C., which are on record shows adequate material to take cognizance of offence against the appellants. At the stage of taking cognizance, Magistrate is not required to go into deeper appreciation of the evidence.
The appeal filed by the appellants is mis-conceived, lacks merits and is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 28.7.2022 Vibha Singh
Digitally signed by VIBHA SINGH Date: 2022.08.03 10:39:55 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the lower court correctly took cognizance and summoned the appellants under the SC/ST Act and IPC based on prima facie evidence.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dr. Suhel And 3 Others
State of U.P. and Another
Karunesh Singh Pawar
Vibha Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
