JUDGMENT

Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma, J.

Heard Sri Ram Kishore Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Janardan Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and Sri O.P. Mishra, learned AGA for the State.

2. By means of this criminal appeal, an order dated 09.11.2022 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Azamgarh in complaint case no. 131 of 2021 (Prem Kumar v. Dr. Divya Nand Yadav and Others), Police Station Jiyanpur, District Azamgarh, whereby the appellant accused persons have been summoned under Sections 323 , 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(da) and 3(1)(dha) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is under challenge.

3. The relevant facts as emerging from record are as below:-

The complainant Prem Kumar filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the present revisionists with the allegations that on account of old enmity, the accused persons, one of whom is a doctor by profession and is having relations with underworld and land mafia came to him on 15.03.2021 at about 07.00 in the evening and began hurling abusive and derogatory words relating to his caste and began to assault him; the complainant rushed inside to save himself, however the assailants followed them and attacked the complainant and women of the house; they left after extending threats to his life; the application was registered as complaint case and statement of witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. have been recorded; the court, after considering the evidence given on behalf of the complainant passed the summoning order which is now under challenge before this court.

4. Besides other arguments, it has been vehemently contended on behalf of the appellants that the police submitted a final report that the story put up by the complainant is false and concocted one; the real facts are that about a month before the alleged incident, the complainant and his family members were challaned under Section 151 Cr.P.C. over a dispute relating to a land; Shashi Yadav late wife of Dr. Divya Nand Yadav (appellant no.1) had purchased a plot no. 256 and her name was mutated in revenue records; Prem Kumar-the complainant (respondent no. 2) has been illegally interfering in the peaceful possession of the appellants; this complaint on the basis of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with a false story, has been filed with ulterior motives and to sully the image of appellant nos. 1 and 2, who run a private nursing home; It is argued that the entire proceedings is malafide and gross abuse of process of law.

5. This is a settled position of law that at the stage of summoning in a complaint case, the court has to confine itself to the evidence produced on behalf of the complainant. It may be noted that at this stage the accused or a proposed accused have no say in the matter. They do not have any opportunity to present their side before the trial court. They do not have any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and the court is, therefore handicapped to some extent to check the veracity of the allegations. The court ordinarily has no option but to depend upon the statement of the witnesses. But this impediment is sought to be diminished by law itself. It may be noted that section 200 Cr.P.C. speaks of examination of complainant and the witnesses present. The provisions says that the Magistrate shall examine on oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any. Experience shows that though not always but in a number of cases, for various reasons, which need not be elaborated here, the complainant is not examined by the Magistrate himself instead the complainant either