Disposed

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

Allahabad HC26 May 2023CRLA/1648/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused the appellants' prayer to set aside the summary trial summoning order under the S.C./S.T. Act. While dismissing the challenge to the summoning, the court directed the trial court to consider bail applications expeditiously if appellants surrender within 30 days and to pass reasoned orders on future discharge applications promptly.

What did the court decide?

Summoning order refused to be set aside; appeal disposed of directing trial court to consider bail within 30 days of surrender and expedite discharge proceedings with reasoned orders.

Satish Chandra Dwivedi @ Satish Dwivedi and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:117715

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1648 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Satish Chandra Dwivedi @ Satish Dwivedi And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sudeep Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Yatharth Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.2 is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Shri Sudeep Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, Shri Yatharth Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and perused the record.

¶8

The instant criminal appeal under Section 14(A)(2) S.C./S.T. Act has been filed by the appellants namely Satish Chandra Dwivedi @ Satish Dwivedi and Jai Shanker Dwivedi @ Alok Dwivedi with the prayer to set-aside the impugned summoning order dated 07.12.2022 passed by learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Mirzapur in Complaint Case No.126 of 2022 (Chani Devi Vs. Satish Dwivedi and another), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 435, 354 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)11 of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kotwali Katra, District Mirzapur.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellants has raised many submissions while referring to the F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.932 of 2012 lodged at Police Station Katra, District Mirzapur and the charge sheet filed therein with regard to the same incident on the basis of which first information report was lodged by the appellant no.1 against the informant/complainant's party and after thorough investigation, charge sheet has also been submitted and it is stated therein (F.I.R. lodged by the appellant no.1) that complainant's side himself burned their Chhappar in order to falsely implicate the appellants.

¶10

It is further submitted that the incident as stated in the complaint has been carved out to pressurize the appellants and also to create defence in the F.I.R. lodged by the appellant no.1 pertaining to which trial is pending before the appropriate criminal court. It is also submitted that the special court has not taken required care and caution at the time of summoning and

¶11

has summoned the appellants without application of judicial mind and thus summoning order is liable to be set aside.

¶12

Learned A.G.A, however, supported the impugned order.

¶13

Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that the instant case is cross version of the incident pertaining to which the F.I.R. was lodged by the appellant no.1 and the oral allegations of the respondent no.2 as contended in the complaint are also supported by the medical evidence, which was made to the special court in the form of injury report pertaining to Chani Devi and she had sustained as many as three visible and one invisible injuries and the nature of the injuries are such, which could not be self inflicted, thus no illegality or to say any irregularity has been committed by the special court.

¶14

Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case especially the injury report and the contention of the appellants in their F.I.R. pertaining to Chani Devi of the complainant's side and also keeping in view 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 ] , it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the appellants. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court at this stage as at the stage of summoning only prima facie 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.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

Investigation and others : (2021) 10 SCC 773, have given various directions to criminal Courts for expeditious disposal of 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.

¶18

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 appellants, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court that if the appellants appear and surrender before the Court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their 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.

¶19

It is further provided that after obtaining regular bail if any application 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 with utmost expedition.

¶20

Order Date :- 26.5.2023 Anupam S/-

¶21

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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