Disposed

Mahendra Maurya v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home Department and another

Allahabad HC26 May 2023CRLA/1473/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal under the S.C./S.T. Act challenging a summoning order, the High Court refused to quash the order as it required adjudication of factual disputes. However, the court disposed of the appeal by directing the trial court to consider a bail application if the appellant surrenders within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is disposed of with a direction to the trial court to consider the appellant's bail application expeditiously if he surrenders within 30 days.

Mahendra Maurya Vs State of U.P. through Secretary… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:117665

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1473 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Mahendra Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home Department And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mohd. Shahanshah Khan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

As per communication of the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned, notice on respondent no.2 has been served sufficiently, however, none is present on his behalf.

¶7

Heard Shri Mohd. Shahanshah Khan, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant criminal appeal under Section 14(A)(2) S.C./S.T. Act has been filed by the appellant namely Mahendra Maurya with the prayer to set-aside the impugned summoning order dated 14.07.2022 passed by learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act) Mirzapur in Special Sessions Trial No.648 of 2022 (Complaint Case No.57 of 2020), under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)da, 3(1)dha of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Lalganj, District Mirzapur and entire proceedings of the above mentioned case.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant while drawing attention of this Court towards the order dated 07.12.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No.9424 of 2022, whereby an opportunity has been provided to the accused Pappu Muslaman of filing discharge application within 30 days from passing of the order with consequential order to the special court to dispose of such discharge application within next three months, submits that accused Pappu Muslaman, to whom role of assault has been attributed, has been given the facility to move a discharge application before the special court and the role of the instant appellant is much lessor than the role of Pappu Muslaman, therefore, on the principle of parity, the same opportunity may also be provided to the appellant.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant has advanced many other factual submissions to demonstrate that the complaint has been filed on false and concocted facts just to pressurize and harass

¶11

the appellant and the Court below has taken the cognizance without considering the matter in right perspective and issued the process against the appellant in a cursory way, therefore, the summoning order passed by the Magistrate, whereby the process is issued against the appellant is bad in law and liable to be quashed.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. while controverting the arguments of the learned counsel for appellant submits that all submissions of the learned counsel for appellant is, with regard to the factual aspects of the case which cannot be gone into by this Court.

¶13

Perusal of the record would reveal that order with regard to the accused Pappu Muslaman was passed on 07.12.2022 in Criminal Appeal No.9424 of 2022 and protection was granted in his favour for four months from 07.12.2022 (the date on which the order was passed) with an opportunity to the appellant to file discharge application within next 30 days from passing of order, however, the special court was further directed to dispose of the same within next 3 months. The time frame provided for disposal of the discharge application, which may be moved by the accused Pappu Muslaman, has already expired. One of the injured has also sustained fracture on his left forearm

¶14

There can not be any doubt in the proposition that cognizance of an offence on complaint is taken for the purpose of issuing process to the accused. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. The magistrate has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary produced in support thereof and would that be sufficient to proceed further. Since it is a process of taking judicial notice of certain facts which constitute an offence, there has to be application of mind as to whether the allegations in the complaint, when considered along with the statements recorded or the inquiry conducted thereon, would constitute violation of law so as to call a person to appear before the criminal court. It is not a mechanical process or a matter of course and in coming to a decision as to whether the process should be issued the Magistrate can take into consideration inherent improbabilities appearing on the face of the complaint or in the evidence led by the complainant in support of the allegations. At the stage of issuing process the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same and he is only to be prima facie satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for proceedings against the accused. It is not the province of the Magistrate, at that stage, to enter into a detailed

¶15

discussion of the merit or de-merits of the case. A wide discretion thus has been given to the magistrate so as to grant or refusal of process and it must be judicially exercised. A person ought not to be dragged into Court merely because a complaint has been filed and if a prima facie case has been made out, the Magistrate ought to issue process and it cannot be refused merely because he thinks that it is unlikely to result in a conviction. However, the words "sufficient grounds for proceeding" appearing in Section 204 Cr.P.C. are of immense importance. It is these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself, reference in this regard may be taken of the law laid down by the Apex Court in following cases [AIR 2015 SUPREME COURT 923, Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation , AIR 1976 SUPREME COURT 1947, Smt. Nagawwa v/s Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi & others , AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 1747, Bhushan Kumar and Anr v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr, AIR 1998 S.C. 128, M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others ]

¶16

Thus from the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the appellant. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in this proceedings. At this stage only primafacie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab , A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma , 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq, another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2017 SC 4843.

¶17

Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for quashing the summoning order as well as all proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby refused.

¶18

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0274/2017, In Re: To issue certain Guidelines Regarding inadequacies and deficiencies in Criminal Trials v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, MANU/SC/0292/2021 and Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : (2021) 10 SCC 773, have given various directions to criminal Courts for expeditious disposal of

¶19

Bail applications. The ratio of above mentioned decisions is quite clear that, in the backdrop of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as the personal liberty of a person is at stake, the bail applications must be decided, expeditiously.

¶20

In the backdrop of aforesaid decisions and keeping in view the entirety of facts, evidence and circumstances of the case and having regard to the request of learned counsel for the appellant, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court that if the appellant appears and surrenders before the Court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously by the Courts below in accordance with law propounded by the Apex Court in the cases mentioned herein above.

¶21

It is further provided that after obtaining regular bail if any application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is moved by the appellants for the purpose of their discharge within a reasonable time at an appropriate stage, the trial court shall be under an obligation to dispose of the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order, after providing an opportunity of being heard to the parties, strictly in accordance with law.

¶22

Order Date :- 26.5.2023 Anupam S/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mahendra Maurya v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home Department and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Maurya v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home Department and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravinder Kumar Sharma Vs Union Of India and 2 Others

Kallu and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gopal Alias Nand Gopal Bairagi and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Bahor Vs State of U.P.

Satish Chandra Dwivedi @ Satish Dwivedi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh Baba @ Santosh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another