Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:103573

Court No. - 81

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2161 of 2023

Appellant :- Baliraj Maurya And 5 Others

Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Appellant :- Pawan Kumar Patel,Sonam Nishad

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Saurabh Pandey

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

Counter affidavit filed by opposite party no.2 is taken on

record.

Heard Shri Ms. Sonam Nishad, learned counsel for the

appellants and Saurabh Pandey, learned counsel for opposite

party no.2 as well as learned Additional Government Advocate

for the State and perused the record.

The instant appeal under Section 14-A (1) of the Scheduled

Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

has been filed by the appellants, Baliraj Maurya, Mustak,

Pappu, Sinku Gaud @ Jai Prakash, Amresh and Baliram

with the prayer to allow the criminal appeal and st aside the

judgment and order dated 12.01.2023 passed by Special Judge

SC/ST Act, Sonbhadra by which appellants have been

summoned in Session Case No.32 of 2023 (State Vs. Baliraj

Maurya and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 76 of 2022,

under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3(2)(5-Ka),

3(1) (Da) SC/ST Act, Police Station Pannuganj, District

Sonbhadra, pending before the learned Special Judge SC/ST

Act, Sonbhadra.

Learned counsel for the appellants has made many factual

submissions to demonstrate that the FIR was lodged on false

and concocted facts just to pressurize and harass the appellants

and the Investigating Officer without going deep into the matter

in a cursory manner has submitted the charge sheet, and the

court below has taken cognizance without considering the

matter in right perspective and, therefore, the charge sheet, the

order of the Magistrate, whereby the cognizance has been

taken and process is issued are bad in law and the same be

quashed.

It is also submitted that the instant FIR has been lodged as a

counter blast of the earlier FIR which was lodged by appellant

no.1 against the informant's side in the year 2015.

Learned A.G.A. while controverting the arguments of the

learned counsel for appellants submits that, the arguments of

the learned counsel for appellants is, with regard to the factual

aspects of the case which cannot be appreciated at this stage, as

only a primafacie case is required to be seen at the stage of

taking of cognizance and issuance of process.

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that no

illegality or to say any irregularity has been committed by the

Investigating Officer in submitting the charge sheet or by

special court in taking cognizance of the offences and

summoning the the appellants to face trial.

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the

facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is

made out against appellants. All the submissions made at the

bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be

appreciated by this Court as at this stage only a primafacie case

is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex court in AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 1747, Bhushan

Kumar and Anr v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr, AIR 2015

SUPREME COURT 923, Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central

Bureau of Investigation, in Kishun Singh and Ors. v. State of

Bihar MANU/SC/0460/1993 : (1993) 2 SCC 16, State of W.B.

and Anr. v. Mohd. Khalid and Ors. MANU/SC/0154/1995 :

(1995) 1 SCC 684, in S.K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer

v.

Videocon

International

Limited

and

Ors.

MANU/SC/7011/2008 : (2008) 2 SCC 492, in M/s. India Carat

Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka MANU/SC/0349/1989 :

1989(26) ACC 280 (SC), in Minu Kumari and another Vs.

State of Bihar and others MANU/SC/8098/2006 : 2006 (4)

SCC 359, in the case of Nupur Talwar vs C.B.I. reported in

2013 AIR SCW 369 and State of Gujrat Vs Afroz Mohammed

Hasanfatta reported in MANU/SC/0139/2019.

Therefore, keepin