The prosecution cannot proceed where allegations reflect a civil dispute and lack evidence of criminal conduct, as per principles from SC/ST Act precedents.

Judgement :

JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

1. Heard Mr. R.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Deepak Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Mr. Rahul Asthana, learned AGA appearing for the State respondents.

2. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 14A(1) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 challenging the order dated 23.7.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Meerut in Complaint No. 26 of 2023 ( Smt. Amarwati vs. Chandrakesh Bhardwaj and another ), under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Kankarkheda, District Meerut.

3. The appellant herein Chandrakesh Bhardwaj has been summoned to face trial under Section 204 of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CrPC’) for the offences under the aforesaid sections. The appellant has preferred this appeal on the grounds that the order impugned passed by the learned trial Court is arbitrary and against the provisions of law and the same is against the weight of evidence. The appellant has also taken the ground that there was no motive on the part of him to commit the alleged offence and there is no credible evidence against him for commission of the said offence. Further, the grounds have been taken that there are major discrepancies in the prosecution story and no caste insulting words were allegedly used by the appellant to the informant and the injured and there is a delay of six months and 27 days in lodging the complaint.

4. The facts in brief is that the an application under Section 156(3) was filed by the opposite party no. 2-Smt. Amarwati against the appellant and co-accused Bijendra, which was treated as a complaint case by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Meerut bearing Complaint No. 26 of 2023 ( Smt. Amarwati vs. Chandrakesh Bhardwaj and another ) alleging therein that the complainant i.e. opposite party no. 2 herein is a housewife and does labour work to support her and her family members. One Chandrakesh Bhardwaj (appellant herein) is a clever person who induced her husband Omveer to execute the sale deed of his plot, which was situated at Medical, Garh Road, Meerut through brokers and in its place some other plot was shown to her at Mansha Devi Road, Aurangshahpur Diggi, Garh Road, Meerut. It is further alleged that the appellant introduced the complainant to co-accused Bijendra and by making false promise persuaded her to purchase a plot from co-accused Bijendra. The appellant and the co-accused Bijendra shared the amount received from the complainant and out of Rs. 5,00,000/-, Rs. 1,50,000/- was taken by the appellant and the remaining Rs. 3,50,000/- was taken by co-accused Bijendra. It is also alleged that on 30.1.2021 the appellant and the co-accused Bijendra by committing forgery executed a forged document showing the same to be a sale deed and deceived her by taking consideration money. When the complainant came to know that no sale deed has been executed, she asked the appellant and the co-accused to return the money received by them to her but they indulged in dilly-dallying and they took her to the forest where they committed rape on her after giving threats and they also used abusive language and caste name like ‘Chamari Chamatti’. It is further alleged that the complainant approached the police for registration of the first information report but the same was not registered and thereafter she filed instant complaint.

5. The learned Special Judge recorded the statement of the victim i.e. opposite party no. 2 under Section 200 CrPC and other witnesses i.e. Brahmpal and Syad Mohammad under Section 202 CrPC wherein they have supported the allegation and after hearing the argument of the complainant passed the order impugned and summoned the appellant and co-accused Bijendra to face trial under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for t