Court No. - 88

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10144 of 2022

Appellant :- Deepak Garg @ Monu

Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Appellant :- Avadh Pratap Singh Shishodia

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Gautam

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, 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

cognizance/summoning order dated 13.07.2022, passed by the

learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bijnor, in S.T. No. 578 of 2022

(State Vs. Deepak Garg), arising out of Case Crime No. 179 of

2022, under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)Da,

3(1)Dha of SC/ST Act, Police Station Nazibabad, District Bijnor.

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

respondent No.2 has lodged the first information report of this case

making false and baseless allegations. It was stated that the

appellant has invested huge amount of money in the Gas agency,

which was being run in the name of respondent No. 2 and later on

with mala fide intention to usurp the amount earned from the Gas

agency, the respondent No. 2 has lodged first information report of

this case by moving an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

The appellant has not committed any cheating or forgery. The

allegations that appellant has transferred amount from the bank

account of Gas agency by way of cheating and fraud, are

thoroughly false and the same are not supported by any

documentary evidence. It is further submitted that essentially the

dispute relates about payments and division of earning of Gas

agency and that no criminal offence is made out. In the first

information report, there is no such allegation that appellant has

used any caste indicative word against respondent No.

2/informant. During investigation, in his statement under Section

161 Cr.P.C., respondent No. 2 has made a vague statement that

appellant has abused him by using caste indicative words. Even as

per the informant, the said incident of abusing took place inside

the office of the Gas agency and thus no offence under Sections

3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha of SC/ST Act is made out. Referring to the facts

of the matter it was submitted that no case is made out against the

appellant.

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

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.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 further submits that the

appellant was working as an employee on the Gas agency of

respondent No. 2 and that by misusing his position, he has

transferred huge amount from the bank account of Gas agency to

his personal benefit, by way of cheating and fraud. In his statement

under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the informant has stated that appellant

has abused him by using caste indicative words. It was submitted

that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned summoning

order.

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

6. It is well settled that at the stage of cognizance and at the stage

of issuing process to the accused, the Magistrate has to be satisfied

that there is sufficient ground for proceeding. The court has to

consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not

whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. At the stage of

issuing the process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to

record reasons, particularly when the cognizance is being taken on

the basis of report filed by the police after investigation, under

section 173(2) Cr.P.C. In S.K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer

Vs. Videocon International Limited and Ors.

MANU/SC/7011/