JUDGMENT

Raj Beer Singh, J.

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 28.01.2021 and impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 24.03.2021, 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 24.03.2021 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 24.03.2021 is concerned, it may be seen that learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Allahabad has taken cognizance by order dated 24.03.2021 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 24.03.2021. 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