The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited jurisdiction of the court at the stage of issuing process and the emphasis on prima facie evidence to establish liability.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMIM AHMED, J.

1. Heard Mr. Suresh Kumar Upadhyay, Advocate along with Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned Counsels for the appellant, Mr. Maneesh Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 and Ms. Shikha Sinha, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No. 1.

2. The present Criminal Appeal under Section 14A(1) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is being preferred by the appellant, namely-Aditya Kumar for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in Session Trial No. 369 of 2021 pending before learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Shravasti arising out of Case Crime No. 0439 of 2020, under Sections 376 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Sonwan, District-Shrawasti against the appellant as well as summoning order dated 29.10.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Shrawasti and charge-sheet No. A-096 of 2021 dated 09.05.2021 against the appellant.

BRIEFS FACTS OF THE CASE

3. The case, in brief, is that the opposite party No. 2/complainant, namely, Manju lodged a First Information Report against the appellant at Police Station Malhipur, District-Shrawasti under Section 376 I.P.C. and section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act registered as Case Crime No. 0439 of 2020 in pursuance of direction issued by the concerned Magistrate upon the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. made by opposite party No. 2

4. The said F.I.R. was lodged stating therein that on 02.07.2020 when the victim was standing at Bus Stand Jamunaha at 10:00 A.M. waiting for Taxi/Bus, the appellant reached there, who insisted the victim to sit on his Motorcycle and he would drop her at her destination, thereafter, the opposite party No. 2 sat on the Motorcycle of the appellant and went with him. It is further alleged that the appellant had taken her away to his house Chichadi Chauraha upon questioning by victim, the appellant told her that he will drop her after sometime. It is also alleged that the appellant shut the door of his house and snatched the mobile phone of the victim and committed rape on her, thereafter, at about 7:00 P.M. in the evening, she had been released from the house of the appellant and after reaching her house, she informed her mother-in-law about the whole incident and thereafter, she also informed about the incident to the Superintendent of Police, District-Shrawasti on 17.12.2020 through registered post.

ARGUMENTS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submits that as per the contents of the F.I.R. it has been clearly stated that opposite party No. 2 reported the alleged incident to the concerned police station on the next day i.e. on 03.07.2020 but no heed was paid to her complaint, thereafter, the victim after a delay of more than five months, sent an application through a registered post dated 17.12.2020 to the Superintendent of Police, District-Shrawasti, stating therein all the facts about the alleged incident but no action was taken by the Superintendent of Police, District-Shrawasti. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of police authorities, the opposite party No. 2 moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before concerned Magistrate and vide order dated 19.12.2020, the Magistrate directed the Police Station-Malhipur, District-Shrawasti to register the complaint made by the opposite party No. 2 and proceed for investigation. The Investigating Officer visited the place of incident made a site plan and proceeded for further investigation.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has re-titrated the same version of the F.I.R. but has slightly changed the version of the F.I.R. and stated that she went with the appellant with her children and the appellant locked her children and committed rape on her.

7. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that after her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she was sent for medical e