Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC10 May 2023CRLA/2738/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal under the SC/ST Act, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed the appeal against the rejection of a complaint by a special court. The court held that the allegations were insufficient to summon the accused and found no illegality in the trial court's order. Appellant challenged the lack of reasoning for refusing summons under SC/ST laws when IPC offences seemed prim

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed as the impugned order was found not to be devoid of merits and no illegality was committed by the special court.

Smt. Kamlesh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:101003

¶2

Court No. - 81 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2738 of 2023 Appellant :- Smt. Kamlesh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Subedar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶4

Though in the communication sent by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra of date 15.4.2023 in pursuance of a communication sent to him by the Chief Judicial magistrate, Mathura of date 31.3.2023 it is informed that the opposite parties no.2 and 3 have been informed on their telephone pertaining to the pendency of the instant proceedings, however, they denied to receive the notice.

¶5

Heard Shri Subedar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been moved by the appellant, namely, Smt. Kamlesh with the prayer to allow the instant criminal appeal and set aside the order 10.10.2022 passed in Special Complaint Case N. 97 of 2021 (Smt. Kamlesh Vs. Swati and others) passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act), Mathura under Sections 384, 385, 386, 504, 506 IPC and 3(r) and (y) of SC/ST Act.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellant while drawing the attention of this Court towards the impugned order of date 10.10.2022, vehemently submits that special court has committed manifest illegality in rejecting the complaint filed by the appellant without giving any reason as even if in the considered opinion of the special court the offences pertaining to SC/ST Act are not attracting but the other offences of Indian Penal Code are prima facie emerging against the opposite parties no.2 and 3 the duty of the special court was to summon the accused persons under those sections and thus patent illegality has been committed by the special court in not summoning the opposite parties no.2 and 3 in appropriate penal sections to face trial for the offences committed by them.

¶8

Learned AGA on the other hand submits that a duty has been casted on the special court or the Magistrate as the case may be to summon the proposed accused persons in a criminal

¶9

case instituted on complaint if there is sufficient material available and sufficient grounds exist while by passing the impugned order the special court has assigned reasons for not summoning the opposite parties no.2 and 3 to face trial and thus, there is no illegality in the impugned order.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that by filing complaint by the appellant against the opposite parties no.2 and 3 various allegations have been levelled the trial court while rejecting the complaint filed by the appellant/ complainant found no sufficient ground to summon the opposite parties no2 and 3 to face trial. The reasons given by the special court, as contemplated under Section 203 of the Cr.PC. are to the tune that the alleged incident has taken place within the four walls of the house and therefore the same was not within the public view. In this regard it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that if the commission of the offence pertaining to SC/ST Act was not emerging the special court should have assigned reasons for not summoning the appellants for other offences pertaining to the Indian Penal Code. In this regard it is recalled that summoning in a criminal trial is a serious business and the trial court is required to take extreme caution while summoning the proposed accused persons to face trial and a person should only be summoned to face criminal trial where there are sufficient grounds existing for the same. The inquiry contemplated under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is a serious procedure to be taken care of by the special judge or magistrate as the the case may be and the same may not be treated as a cursory exercise or an eye wash. The duty of the special court or the Magistrate is to consider all the facts and circumstances and evidence/ material produced before it in totality having regard to the probability of the commission of these offences and thereafter to arrive at a just conclusion as to whether there are sufficient grounds existing for summoning the propsoed accused persons..

¶11

In the considered opinion of this Court the allegations which have been levelled in the complaint and in the statements of the complainant and his witnesses may not be sufficient for summoning of the proposed accused persons i.e. opposite parties no.2 and 3 and in this regard, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in totality no illegality appears to have been committed by the special court. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed being devoid of merits.

¶12

Order Date :- 10.5.2023/Muk

¶13

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

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

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

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

Nabi Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another