ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
RAJ BEER SINGH, J.
Syed Mohiuddin Ahmad - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 8338 of 2022
Decided On : 03-03-2023
Judicial Discretion - Criminal Procedure - SC/ST Act - Sections 14-A(1), 3(1)(Da), (Dha) - The court emphasized the need for judicious exercise of discretion in issuing non-bailable warrants, highlighting the importance of personal liberty and the necessity of following procedural safeguards before resorting to such measures.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the issuance of a charge-sheet and non-bailable warrants in a case involving allegations of abuse under the SC/ST Act, claiming the allegations were false and the dispute was civil in nature.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the issuance of non-bailable warrants was not in accordance with the law, as proper procedures were not followed, and the alleged incident did not occur in public view, thus quashing the warrants related to the SC/ST Act.
Issues: Whether the issuance of non-bailable warrants was justified and whether the allegations under the SC/ST Act were valid given the circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that non-bailable warrants should only be issued after exhausting less severe measures, emphasizing the need for a careful balance between personal liberty and societal interests.
Result: The appeal is disposed of, quashing the non-bailable warrants under the SC/ST Act but upholding the summons for IPC offences.
JUDGMENT :
(Raj Beer Singh, J.) :
1. Rejoinder-affidavit, filed by the learned counsel for the appellant, is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 14-A (1) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST Act') for quashing of charge-sheet dated 28.1.2021 and impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 24.3.2021, passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Allahabad in Special Trial No. 253 of 2021 (State v. Mohiuddin Ahmad), arising out of Case Crime No. 766 of 2019, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC and Section 3(1)Da, Dha of SC/ST (PA) Act, P.S. Jhusi, District Allahabad.
4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent No. 3 has lodged First Information Report of this case making false and baseless allegations. The dispute between the parties is civil in nature, which has been converted by the respondent No. 3 into criminal case by concocting a false story. In the complaint made to the police and S.S.P regarding the incident, there were no allegations that the respondent No. 3/informant was abused by using caste indicative words. The First Information Report of this case has been got lodged by the respondent No. 3 by moving an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Learned counsel submitted that in fact regarding the disputed sale-deed, the respondent No. 3 has already received his due amount and he has lodged this case with mala fide intention.
5. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that by impugned order dated 24.3.2021 cognizance was taken and appellant was summoned and by the same order non-bailable warrants have been issued against the appellant, which is against the well-settled position of law. It was also submitted that even as per version of first informant, the alleged incident of abusing took place inside the car and thus, it cannot be said that respondent No. 3/informant was abused or humiliated on ground of his caste within public view. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that no prima facie case is made out.
6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A and learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 have opposed the appeal and argued that in view of allegations made in the First Information Report and material collected during investigation, a prima facie case is made out against the appellant. During investigation the informant and other witnesses have supported the prosecution version. It was submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned summoning order.
7. I have considered rival submissions and perused the record.
8. So far as the issuance of non-bailable warrants by impugned order dated 24.3.2021 is concerned, it may be seen that learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Allahabad has taken cognizance by order dated 24.3.2021 and on the same date by same order, non-bailable warrants were issued against the appellant. It is clear that neither any summons have been issued to accused-appellant nor any bailable warrants were issued to accused appellant before issuance of non-bailable warrants vide impugned order dated 24.3.2021. The issue as to when non-bailable warrants are to be issued is well-settled. In case of Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin v. State of Maharashtra and another, 2012 (9) SCC 791, it has been held that power and jurisdiction of Court to issue appropriate warrant has to be exercised judiciously, striking a balance between the need of law enforcement on the one hand and the protection of citizen from highhandedness at the hands of the law enforcement agencies on the other. It was held:
Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin v. State of Maharashtra and Another
State of U.P. v. Poosu and another
Inder Mohan Goswami and another v. State of Uttaranchal and others
S.K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Limited and Others
Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Others
The court established that non-bailable warrants must be issued judiciously, prioritizing personal liberty and procedural correctness.
The court ruled that inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS cannot override established procedural norms in criminal proceedings, particularly in serious cases like honour killings.
Non-bailable warrants cannot be issued in a routine manner and must be supported by specific reasons to protect individual liberties under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
Issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants requires specific justifications and must not occur routinely; individual liberty should be prioritized unless necessitated by compelling circumstances.
Non-bailable warrants should not be issued routinely and must be justified with specific reasons, emphasizing the balance between individual rights and public interest.
Before issuing Non-Bailable Warrant due care and precaution is warranted for Trial Court and Non-Bailable Warrant should not be issued in a cursory manner.
The court established that mere allegations of caste-based insults are insufficient to invoke the SC/ST Act unless there is clear evidence of intent to humiliate based on caste and that the incident ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.