Dismissed

Raj Pachauri and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2023CRLA/1575/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a criminal appeal under Sec 14A of the SC/ST Act. The court held that the impugned order summoning the appellants was not perverse. It emphasized that summoning requires only prima facie satisfaction, not a trial, and noted that lack of medical exam or delay in filing does not justify quashing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of summoning dismissed; criminal appeal under Section 14A of SC/ST Act rejected.

Raj Pachauri and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:132454

¶2

Court No. - 91

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1575 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Raj Pachauri And 3 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Ajay Kumar Pandey,Sheshadri Trivedi,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ajay Sengar,Deepak Dubey,Om Prakash Singh Sikarwar

¶5

Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sheshadri Trivedi, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

This appeal has been preferred by the appellants under section 14A(1) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as SC/ST Act) for quashing of the impugned order dated 20.01.2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jalaun in Complaint Case No.83 of 2022 (SST 06/2023), Case Crime No.64 of 2022, under Sections 376-D, 323, 504, 506, IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station-Madhogarh, DistrictJalaun whereby, the appellants have been summoned for aforesaid offences.

¶8

It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellants that the impugned order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside. The respondent No.2 has lodged the complaint of this case making false and baseless allegations. In the complaint, no motive at all has been attributed to the appellants-accused and that there are absolutely no reasons as to why the appellants would abuse or sexually assault the respondent No.2. No plausible explanation has been given in filing the complaint with delay of 20 days. No specific role has been assigned to the appellants. Appellant no.1 (Raj Pachauri) has already registered a case against Shivam Gurjar (witness) bearing case crime No.94 of 2017. The alleged eye witnesses, has given the statements against the appellants, as such, it is clear that the story of the present case has been cooked up as a counterblast and also to mount pressure upon the appellants. Medical examination has not been got conducted by the victim. There is no independent eye witness account to the said incident so as to corroborate the commission of the alleged offence. It is further submitted that all the witnesses have given the statements against the appellants under the influence of the victim and his family members. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that no prima facie case is made out against appellants. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Vineet Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and another; AIR 2017 SC 1884, Lalankumar Singh and others Vs.

¶9

State of Maharashtra; 2022 (4) Crimes (SC) 412, Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh; 2023 0 Supreme (SC) 334 as well as a judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sachin Thakur Vs. State of U.P.; 2018 (5) ADJ 318 and submits that in view of the aforesaid contentions as well as the judgments cited above, present criminal proceedings against the appellants is nothing but an abuse of process of law, which is liable to be quashed.

¶10

Learned AGA and learned counsel for respondent No.2 have opposed contentions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and submits that appellants/accused are involved in committing the offence and as per allegations made in the complaint and material collected during enquiry, a prima facie case is made out against them.

¶11

I have considered rival submissions and perused the record.

¶12

It is well settled that at the stage of summoning the accused on the basis of a private complaint all that is required is a satisfaction by the Magistrate that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused in the light of the records made available and the evidence adduced by the complainant. At that stage the Magistrate has to find out whether prima facie case made out against the accused or not. The Magistrate is not required to meticulously appreciate the evidence at the stage of 203/204 Cr.P.C. All that the Magistrate has to do is to see whether on a cursory perusal of the complaint and the evidence recorded during preliminary enquiry under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. that there is prima facie evidence in support of charge leveled against the accused. The Magistrate/Court has to see whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused and in that process the court is not to weigh the evidence meticulously. However, 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 application of mind has to be indicated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. Considering the duties on the part of the Magistrate for issuance of summons to accused in a complaint case and that there must be sufficient indication as to the application of mind and observing that the Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking cognizance of the complaint.

¶13

In Jagdish Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Another (2004) 4 SCC 432 , it was held as under:-

¶14

"10. ....The taking of cognizance of the offence is an area exclusively within the domain of a Magistrate. At this stage, the Magistrate has to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction, can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of inquiry. At the stage of issuing the process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons."

¶15

In Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others (1998) 5 SCC 749, the Supreme Court has held that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and that the order of the Magistrate summoning the accused

¶16

must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and law governing the issue. In para (28), it was held as under:-

¶17

"28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. 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. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused."

¶18

In Punjab National Bank and Others v. Surendra Prasad Sinha 1993 Supp (1) SCC 499, it was held that the issuance of process should not be mechanical nor should be made an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. At the stage of issuance of process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record detailed orders. But based on the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same, the Magistrate is to be prima facie satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused.

¶19

Similarly, this Court in the case of Smt. Shiv Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2017 (2) JIC, 589, (All) (LB) held as under:-

¶20

"Learned Magistrate was required to at least mention in the order about the prima facie satisfaction for summoning the accused. The order must reflect that the learned Magistrate has exercised his jurisdiction in accordance with law after satisfying himself about the prima facie allegations made in the complaint. The accused cannot be summoned mechanically merely by writing that perused the statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C."

¶21

Thus, it is clear that at the stage of summoning the accused on the basis of a private complaint, the Magistrate/Court has to satisfy itself that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused in the light of the material on record and the evidence adduced by the complainant. The Magistrate has to find out whether prima facie case is made out against the accused or not, however it is equally desirable that 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.

¶22

At this stage, it would be appropriate to quote the provisions of Section 3(1) Da/(r) and Dha/(s) of SC/ST Act, which reads as follows:-

¶23

"Section 3(1)(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;

¶24

Section 3(1)(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view;"

¶25

In the instant matter, perusal of record shows that the respondent No.2 has lodged complaint of this case against appellants/accused alleging therein that on 18.09.2022 at 06:00 p.m. when she (complainant) was returning to her house from the field, then all the appellants came there and caught her from behind and have committed physical/sexual assault with her and on her cry, the witnesses appeared, who have saved the complainant. Thereafter, the appellants by using caste indicating words intimidated her (complainant) that if she told about the said incident to anyone, they will kill her and her family members. Complainant/O.P. No.2 belongs to scheduled caste category. The alleged incident has taken place on the public way and thus the alleged offences are committed in the place in public view. Only submission has been made regarding the animosity with the witnesses, but there is no submission with regard to the prosecutorix that how she got influenced by the witnesses to lodge a false and malacious complaint against the accused-appellants. Merely because no plausible explanation has been given in filing the complaint nor medical examination has been got conducted by the victim nor there is any independent eye witness account to the said incident, it cannot be a ground to quash the impugned chargesheet and summoning order. In the instant case considering the allegations made in the complaint case and material collected during enquiry, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out. No material illegality or perversity could be shown in the impugned summoning order. Thus this appeal has no substance and is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

14. With aforesaid observations, the appeal is dismissed .

¶27

Order Date :- 5.7.2023 Ashutosh

¶28

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

Raj Pachauri and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Pachauri and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

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

Balveer Singh and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Babu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dileep Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bablu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gaurishankar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jagiya Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another