Allowed

Aun Raza v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Sept 2023CRLA/5861/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appellant's appeal, holding that the trial court erred in summoning without a Section 202 Cr.P.C. inquiry due to jurisdictional differences. The order was set aside, directing a fresh inquiry within three months and questioning the validity of the summons under the amended SC/ST Act.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 19.05.2022 set aside; trial court directed to pass fresh order after inquiry within three months.

Aun Raza Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:181149

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5861 of 2022

¶4

Appellant :- Aun Raza Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Alok Ranjan Mishra,Amrita Rai Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Hitesh Pachori,S B Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶6

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has filed counter affidavit today. Let it be kept on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.

¶8

This appeal has been filed against the order dated 19.05.2022 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kaushambi in Complaint Case No. 98 of 2022 (Basant Lal Vs. Aun Raza) under Sections 419, 420, 406, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)10 SC/ST Act, Police Station Paschim Sharira, District Kaushambi.

¶9

By the impugned order the appellant has been summoned to face the trial under Sections 419, 420, 406, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)10 SC/ST Act.

¶10

It is the preliminary argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that as per the address of the appellant given in the complaint, the appellant lives in Prayagraj district and the opposite party no. 2 lives in district Kaushambi. As the appellant is living in separate district, the Magistrate was bound to make an inquiry under Section 202 (1) Cr.P.C. before passing the impugned order.

¶11

If we go through the complaint, which is appended at page-5 of the paper book, the address of the complainant/opposite party no. 2 is of Kaushambi district and the address of the appellant (opposite party in the complaint) is of District Prayagraj. Thus, in the light of Section 202 (1) Cr.P.C. which is a mandatory section, the trial court was bound to inquire into the case either himself or he could direct for investigation to be done by the police officer or by such person as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding.

¶12

Thus, in the opinion of the court, in the complaint itself the opposite party no. 2 has mentioned the address of the appellant Aun Raza showing him to be resident of district Prayagraj, then he cannot deviate from his assertion. At page-31 of the counter affidavit, the address of Muzaffari Fatma, mother of the appellant, is also shown of district Prayagraj. When the opposite party no. 2 himself has mentioned the address of the appellant and the address of the mother of the appellant of district Prayagraj, he cannot deviate from his admission.

¶13

In the opinion of the court, as the appellant lives in different district so the inquiry was mandatory as per Section 202(1) Cr.P.C., which is not shown to be done by the trial court as per impugned order.

¶14

Hence, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.05.2022 is set aside.

¶15

The trial court is directed to pass a fresh order after making an inquiry, as per Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. within three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. The trial court is further directed to make it clear as to how a person is being summoned under Section 3(1)10 of SC/ST Act, while no such section exists in the Act after year, 2016.

¶16

Order Date :- 19.9.2023 gp

¶17

Digitally signed by :- GANESH PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Aun Raza v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aun Raza 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Goshwami and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Vilas Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohan Lal Kori Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Raj Kumar Maurya and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh Prajapati Vs State of U.P.