Court No. - 88

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10091 of 2022

Appellant :- Kamlesh Vishwakarma And 2 Others

Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Appellant :- Pramod Kumar Pandey

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Om Prakash,Pankaj Sharma

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for

respondent No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. 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') against the

summoning order dated 18.10.2022, passed by learned Special

Judge (SC/ST Act), Mirzapur, in Complaint Case No. 65/2022,

UPMI010015452022 (Chandni Vs. Kamlesh Vishwakarma and

others), arising out of Criminal Misc. Case No. 44/2022,

UPMI010005012022, under Sections 452, 356, 323, 504, 506 IPC

and Sections 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha of SC/ST Act, Police Station

Chunar, District Mirzapur.

3. It has been argued by learned counsel for appellants that the

respondent No.2 has lodged the complaint of this case making

false and baseless allegations and that no such incident, as alleged

in the complaint, took place. According to the version of the

complainant, the accused persons have trespassed into her house in

order to commit theft and thus, it cannot be said that any offence

under the provisions of SC/ST Act is made out. There is delay in

medical examination of the injured. The allegations made against

the appellants are false and baseless. It is further submitted that

even according to the version of the complainant, the alleged

incident took place at 10:30 P.M. inside the house of the

complainant and thus, it cannot be said that the alleged incident of

abusing the complainant or her family members, took place in

public view and thus, no offence under Sections 3(1)Da and

3(1)Dha, is made out.

4. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the respondent No.2

have opposed the appeal. Learned counsel for respondent No.2

argued that in the complaint as well as in the statement of

complainant, recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and of witnesses,

recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., a prima facie case is made out

against the appellants. It was submitted that there are allegations

that the accused-appellants have abused the complainant and her

family members by using caste indicative words.

5. I have considered rival submissions and perused the record.

6. It is well settled that at the stage of summoning the accused on

the basis of a private complaint all that is required is a satisfaction

by the Magistrate that there is sufficient ground to proceed against

the accused in the light of the records made available and the

evidence adduced by the complainant. At that stage the Magistrate

has to find out whether prima facie case made out against the

accused or not. The Magistrate is not required to meticulously

appreciate the evidence at the stage of 203/204 Cr.P.C. All that the

Magistrate has to do is to see whether on a cursory perusal of the

complaint and the evidence recorded during preliminary enquiry

under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. that there is prima facie

evidence in support of charge leveled against the accused. The

Magistrate/Court has to see whether or not there is sufficient

ground for proceedings against the accused and in that process the

court is not to weigh the evidence meticulously. However, the

order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that

he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law

applicable thereto. The application of mind has to be indicated by

disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. Considering the duties on

the part of the Magistrate for issuance of summons to accused in a

complaint case and that there must be sufficient indication as to the

application of mind and observing that the Magistrate is not to act

as a post office in taking cognizance of t