Special Courts must follow specific procedural laws for trying scheduled offences; failure to do so constitutes an abuse of process.

JUDGMENT :

NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Sri Atharva Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Sheo Ram Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4, Sri Ratan Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned orders dated 26.06.2024 and 30.05.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Jhansi in Complaint Case No. 103 of 2023 (Rajeev Agarwal and others Vs. Sanjay Agarwal) under Sections 452 , 323, 504, 506, 392, 406, 420, 120B IPC , Police Station-Kotwali, District-Jhansi, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Jhansi.

3. Briefly stated, the applicant lodged a complaint in the Court of learned Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Jhansi as Complaint Case No. 103 of 2023 (Sanjay Agarwal Vs. Rajeev Agrawal and others) wherein vide order dated 16.02.2024, the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 have been summoned to face the trial under Sections 392 , 452, 120B, 504, 506 IPC .

4. After taking cognizance, the learned Trial Court had fixed 06.06.2024 for the framing of the charges and on 26.06.2024, the date was fixed for recording of the evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C.

5. It has been submitted that the respondents/accused moved an application under Section 39B before the learned Trial Court which was allowed vide order dated 30.05.2025 permitting, them to cross-examine P.W.-2 on the basis of the evidence adduced under Section 244 Cr.P.C.

6. The main submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the procedure adopted by the learned Special Court for trying a Scheduled offence i.e., Section 392 IPC is illegal and against the procedure prescribed. It has been submitted that the instant complaint was lodged against the respondents/accused in the Court of Special Court (Dacoity Affected Area) Jhansi. The cognizance was taken and summoning order was passed u/s 392, 452,120B,504, 506 & 392 which is a Scheduled offence under the provisions of the UP Dacoity Affected Area Act, 1983 therefore trial ought to have been conducted in the manner as prescribed under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the provisions of Sections 244 or 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not apply to the proceedings of the Complaint Case pending before a Special Court which happens to be the learned Sessions Judge under the U.P. Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1983 (here-in-after referred to as "U.P Act No. 31 of 1983").

7. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the provisions of U.P. Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1983 whose object is to make provision for specifying certain offences in the Dacoity Affected Areas of the Uttar Pradesh in order to curb effectively commission of Scheduled offences and to make provision for punishment and speedy trial thereof and further attachment of properties acquired through the commission of such offences.

8. The State of Uttar Pradesh vide Government Notification (No. 8111- P/VIII-3-31) on November 5, 1981 had declared Jhansi as a Dacoity Affected Area.

9. The Schedule appended to the said Act classifies Section 392 IPC to be a Scheduled offence under Section 2(b) of the U.P. Act No. 31 of 1983.

10. Section 7 of U.P. Act No. 31 of 1983 prescribes the procedure and powers of the Special Courts:-

"Section 7. Procedure and powers of Special Courts.- (1) A Special Court may take cognizance of any scheduled offence,

(a)