Disposed

Brahmanand Patel and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 May 2023CRLA/3512/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) SC/ST Act challenged a summoning order as malicious. The High Court refused to quash the summons but disposed of the appeal by directing the Trial Court to consider the appellants' bail application expeditiously if they surrender within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash summons refused; appeal disposed of with direction to consider bail expeditiously if appellants surrender within 30 days.

Brahmanand Patel and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:101803

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3512 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Brahmanand Patel And 5 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Gulab Chandra,Rupesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ram Sumer Chaudhary

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Gulab Chandra, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Suraj Chaudhary holding bief for Shri Ram Sumer Chaudhary, learned counsel for respondent no.2 as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant appeal under Section 14-A(1) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellants, namely, Brahmanand Patel, Ishwar Patel, Sampurnanad Patel, Rajendra Patel, Arvind Patel and Ajay Patel with the prayer to call for and peruse the entire records of complaint case no. 104 of 2021, Suresh Versus Brahmanand and others, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3(1) Dha of SC/ST Act, Police Station Sinduriya, District Maharajganj from the court below and set aside and quash the impugned summoning order dated 20.03.2023 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Maharajganj including entire proceedings of complaint case and allow this appeal.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellants has advanced many factual submissions to demonstrate that the complaint has been filed on false and concocted facts just to pressurize and harass the appellants and the Court below has taken the cognizance without considering the matter in right perspective and issued the process against the appellants in a cursory way, therefore, the summoning order passed by the Magistrate, whereby the process is issued against the appellants is bad in law and liable to be quashed.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. while controverting the arguments of learned counsel for appellants submits that, the arguments of the learned counsel for appellants is, with regard to the factual

¶10

aspects of the case which cannot be appreciated by this Court.

¶11

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that no illegality or to say any irregularity has been committed by the Investigating Officer in submitting the charge sheet or by special court in taking cognizance of the offences and summoning the the appellants to face trial.

¶12

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 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

¶13

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]

¶14

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.

¶15

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0274/2017 and 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 in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : (2021) 10 SCC 773 and Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I. through Directo r : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 941 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 should be decided, expeditiously.

¶16

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.

¶17

It is provided that after procuring regular bail the appellants/ accused persons may move a discharge application at an appropriate stage and if the same is filed at an appropriate stage

¶18

within reasonable time the special court/ trial court shall be under an obligation to dispose of the same strictly in accordance with the law after providing an opportunity of being heard to the parties by passing a reasoned order.

¶19

Order Date :- 11.5.2023 Muk

¶20

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

Brahmanand Patel and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brahmanand Patel and 5 Others 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

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

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

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

Mannan Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bitti Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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