.

Court No. - 77

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3427 of 2021

Appellant :- Kumud Ranjan Roy And 3 Others

Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Appellant :- Pradeep Kumar

Singh,Jitendra Pal Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ram Bahadur

Singh

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

Heard learned Counsel for the appellants, learned

AGA for State as well as learned Counsel for the

opposite party no.2 and perused the material

available on record.

By this appeal, appellants, namely, Kumud Ranjan

Roy, Kamlesh Roy, Nihar Mandal and Durga Rani

Roy challenged the cognizance order dated

14.07.2021 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act,

Pilibhit as well as charge sheet in S.T. No. 367 of

2021, (Case Crime No.43 of 2021), under Sections

323, 504, 506 IPC & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police

Station Hajara, District Pilibhit.

Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted in

the following manners:

(i) Appellants are innocent, they have committed

no offence and they have been falsely implicated

in the present.

(ii) No offence is made out under Sections SC/ST

Act.

(iii) Prior to this case, proceeding under Section

107/116 Cr.P.C. was drawn by the police for the

same offence. Present case has been registered on

the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. After

investigation, I.O. submitted charge sheet. On the

charge sheet impugned cognizance order has

been passed.

(iv) Witnesses are not independent witnesses, they

are interest witnesses.

(v) There is contradiction between the statement

of complainant and his witnesses. No case is made

out against the appellants. Trial Court did not

appreciate the evidence in right prospective and

passed the impugned order without proper

application of mind.

(vi) He showed some documents and statements

of witnesses in support of his contentions.

On the other hand, learned AGA and learned

Counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the

submissions made by learned Counsel for the

appellants and submitted that Magistrate took

cognizance after application of proper mind.

Nothing is illegal or irregular in the impugned

order. Charge sheet has been filed by the I.O. after

due evidence. Prima-facie case is made out.

Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

According to the prosecution that on 12.12.2020 at

about 10:00 AM, complainant sitting in his Jan

Seva Kendra and preparing AYUSHMAN card. In the

meantime, Kumud Rai came in his shop and said

that why the card has not been prepared to my

people and complainant replied that the

Government has send the list for making the card,

on this Kumud Rai got angry and abused him with

caste words and went from the shop. After some

time Kumud Rai and other applicants came back to

his shop and abused him with filthy language with

caste words, when complainant objected then they

entered into his shop and have beaten the

complainant and threat to dire consequences.

In Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors.,

(1999) 3 SCC 259, Court has held that it is not

necessary that a complainant should verbatim

reproduce in the body of his complaint all the

ingredients of the offence he is alleging. If the

factual foundation for the offence has been laid in

the complaint, the court should not hasten to

quash

criminal

proceedings

during

the

investigation stage merely on the premise that

one or two ingredients have not been stated with

details.

In Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar

and others, (2019) 6 SCC 107, Supreme Court

observed that in order to see whether any prima

facie case against the accused for taking its

cognizable is made out or not, the Court is only

required to see the allegations made in the

complaint and the High Court had no jurisdiction to

appreciate the evidence because whether there

are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the

statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue

relating to appreciation of eviden