Back
2019 Supreme(All) 944
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ram Krishna Gautam, J.
Sami Ullah And Others - Appellant
Vs.
State Of U.P. And Another - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 4084 of 2018
Decided On : 02-08-2019
Prabhakar Dubey, Adv., Vijay Prakash Chaturvedi, Adv.
The main legal point established is that the summoning order under the SC/ST Act and IPC sections is based on the prima facie sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint, without requiring a meticulous and reasoned order at the time of summoning.
Headnote:
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Summoning Order - Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)X SC/ST Act
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed against the order of summoning passed by the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, in a criminal complaint case. The appellants argued that the summoning was erroneous as there was no dispute or quarrel between the opposite party and the appellants, and the medical evidence did not support the alleged date of occurrence.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the summoning order was passed based on the material placed on record, including the statements of the complainant and witnesses, and the medical report, without any illegality or irregularity.
Issues: The issues involved the jurisdiction of the Court and the validity of the summoning order under the SC/ST Act and IPC sections.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that at the time of summoning, it is only necessary to determine whether the allegations in the complaint are prima facie sufficient to proceed against the accused, without delving into the merits of the case.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the interim order, if any, stood vacated.
JUDGMENT :
Ram Krishna Gautam, J.
This appeal under Section 14-A(1) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by accused appellants Sami Ullah, Subrati, Akram and Rizwan Ahmad @ Sanauwar against order of summoning passed by Court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, in Criminal Complaint Case No. 4 of 2017; Ashok Kumar Kannaujiya Vs. Sami Ullah and others, vide order dated 05.07.2018.
2. Learned counsel for appellants argued that a Complaint Case No. 4 of 2017, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)X SC/ST Act, P.S. Shohratgarh, District Siddhartha Nagar, was filed before Court of Additional Session/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, District Siddhartha Nagar, in which informant/complainant Ashok Kumar Kannaujiya, who had moved application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for a direction for getting case registered and investigated for occurrence of 11.00 A.M. on 14.04.2016, which was registered as complaint case, was with statement of complainant and two other witnesses, recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., on the basis of which above summoning order was passed, whereas there was no dispute or quarrel in between opposite party no. 2 and appellants. Rather a civil dispute regarding land was in between PW-1, PW-2 and appellants, for which this false case was got registered in the name of complainant / opposite party no. 2. Medical evidence was not in consonance with the oral statement, because Medical Officer has written injury to be of seven days, whereas the medical examination was of the very next day. This duration was not commensurate to alleged date of occurrence. Hence, this summoning was erroneous.
3. Learned counsel for informant/complainant and learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed this appeal.
4. Perusal of application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was treated as complaint, reveals that it was presented before Court of District and Sessions Judge, Siddhartha Nagar. Admittedly, District and Sessions Judge, Siddhartha Nagar was not a Special Judge, notified under SC/ST Act nor he was the power of magistrate for exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.. Though, jurisdiction was exercised by Court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Siddhartha Nagar and the same is the designation given by Court passing summoning order, but from order sheet it is not apparent as to when this application or file was transferred to above Court.
5. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 mentioned that Siddhartha Nagar being a judgeship of few officers, remains with jurisdiction of District and Sessions Judge for many special Acts, but even in above circumstance, this application, treated to be complaint, is to be addressed and filed in a Court having jurisdiction of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Siddhartha Nagar, may it be Court of District and Sessions Judge or any other Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge. This is a technicality apparent on record, not going to prejudice prosecution, but District and Sessions Judge, Siddhartha Nagar is to ensure that his Additional District Judges should be aware of this fact that application is to be filed before Court having jurisdiction and not to any other Court and in case of filing to any other Court, this ought to be transferred either in judicial side or in administrative side to Court having jurisdiction under special Act.
6. Regarding summoning order, it is apparent that complainant is the member of Scheduled Caste community, for which he has filed his caste certificate and appellants are not of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community. Assault by appellants over complainant on above date of occurrence i.e. 14.04.2016 at about 11.00 A.M. at the field of Saurabh Yadav, where there was some altercation in between Sami Ullah and others and Saurabh Yadav, regarding some civil dispute, was said, in which name of appellants are there, who gave assault over complainant and it was with specific words used for intimidating, bas
