Disposed

Manjeet and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 May 2023CRLA/2033/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an appeal by the appellants challenging their summon in a case under the SC/ST Act and IPC. Despite allegations of false complaints and contradictions in witness statements, noting the appellants had secured bail and charges were not framed, the Court remanded the matter to the Special Court.

What did the court decide?

Special Court directed to dispose of Section 227 Cr.P.C. application for discharge with a reasoned order within 20 days.

Manjeet and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:100459

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2033 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Manjeet And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Namman Raj Vanshi,Anurag Kumar Ojha

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ashish Kumar Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Anurag Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.2 as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant appeal under Section 14-A(1) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellants, namely, Manjeet and Amarjeet with the prayer to allow this appeal and set-aside the impugned order dated 20.09.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge SC/ST Act, Hapur in relation to the Case Crime No.1096 of 2021 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 379 of 2022, (Bheem Singh Vs. Manjeet and others) under Sections 392, 323, 427, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2) (Va) & 3(1) (Dha) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby protest petition of the complainant was allowed and present case was registered as Complaint Case as well as impugned order dated 18.11.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hapur, in Complaint Case No. 29 of 2022 (Bheem Singh Vs. Manjeet and another), under Sections 323, 427, 504 IPC and Section 3(2) (Va) of SC/ST Act,Police Station Hapur Nagar, District Hapur, whereby the appellants were summoned to appear before the learned court below.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that special court has committed manifest illegality in passing the impugned order whereby the appellants have been summoned to face trial while it was evident on the face of the prosecution/ complaint case that a false case has been cooked up by the opposite party no.2 who is an advocate.

¶10

It is also submitted that after lodging of the FIR, that too under the orders of the special court passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P. after thorough investigation, final report was submitted,

¶11

however, on a protest petition filed by opposite party no.2 the same was treated as complaint and the appellants have wrongly summoned to face trial while there are glaring contradictions in the statement of the complainant and his two witnesses on the basis of which appellants have been summoned to face trial.

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellants while relying on M/s Pepsi Food Ltd and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & others reported in 1997(9) SC 279 and Krishna Lal Chawla and others Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2021 0 Supreme (SC)133 submits that summoning in any criminal case is a serious business and only on the score that the complainant has chosen to file complaint and has testified his two witnesses the innocent persons may not be summoned to bear the agony of criminal trial.

¶13

Learned cousnel for opposite party no.2, however, submits that the appellants have secured regular bail and the special court on an application moved under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. may consider the grounds taken in this appeal at the stage of framing of charge as the ambit and scope of Section 227 Cr.P.C. is wider than the scope of Section 204 Cr.P.C.

¶14

Learned AGA, however, supported the impugned order.

¶15

Having heard learned cousnel for the parties and having perused the record, though various submissions have been made by learned cousnel for the appellants in order to canvass that the incident which has been shown in the complaint and in the statement of complainant and his two witnesses, is highly improbable and could be believed on the touch stone of probability but having regard to the admitted situation that the appellants have procured regular bail and still the charges against the appellants have not been framed, the instant appeal is finally disposed of with a direction to the special court that if within 20 days from today any application for discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. is moved by the appellants, the trial court shall dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order taking into account all the submissions, which may be raised by the parties before it after providing an opportunity of being heard to the parties, strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by the status of the opposite party no.2, strictly in accordance with law.

¶16

Order Date :- 10.5.2023 Muk

¶17

Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manjeet and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjeet 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

Iliyas @ Mulla and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suman Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Avnish Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Kamlesh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Girjesh Kumar Gaur and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nabi Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another