HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 81 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10159 of 2022 Appellant :- Pintu Singh And 7 Other Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Deepika Tiwari,Manoj Srivastava Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
At the outset learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 fairly submits that he is having instructions not to file counter affidavit in this case and he is ready to argue the case without filing counter affidavit/objections.
Heard Shri Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui, Advocate holding brief of Shri Amit Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Manoj Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.2 as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.
The instant appeal under Section 14-A(1) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been filed by the appellants- Pintu Singh, Dhiru Singh, Kaloo Singh, Tapoo Singh, Nirbhay Singh @ Nanhoo, Shivam Singh, Bhola Singh and Vijay Singh with the prayer to allow the present appeal and set aside the summoning order dated 21.05.2022 passed by learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Kanpur Nagar, in Special Criminal Case No. 1218 of 2021 (Smt. Sita Devi vs. Pintu Singh and Others), under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 354-B I.P.C. and Section 3(2)Vka of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar as well as to stay/quash the entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case.
Learned counsel for the appellants while drawing the attention of this Court towards the extract of a plaint of Civil Suit bearing No. 1076 of 2021 placed on record, submits that this civil suit was filed from the side of the appellants against the husband of the complainant namely Raju and one another on 15.07.2021 pertaining to the dispute about an immovable property and it was after institution of this civil suit as a counter blast, instant complaint has been moved by the wife of defendant no.1-Raju and the trial Court without adverting to the facts and the statement of the witnesses testified before it has summoned the appellants in a mechanical manner.
It is further submitted that initially an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the opposite party no.2, which has been treated as 'complaint' by the Special Court and the Special Court has not considered the allegations as levelled in the complaint in right perspective as summoning in a criminal matter is a serious business and the trial Court should have visualized the allegations on the touchstone of probability before summoning the appellants to face trial and so much so eight persons from the side of the appellants have been summoned to face trial. Thus, the summoning order is bad in law and be set-aside.
Learned counsel for respondent no.2, however, chooses not to file any counter affidavit/objections, but submits that at the stage of summoning only a primafacie case is required to be seen.
Learned A.G.A. is also of the similar view that at the stage of meticulous exercise of appreciation of evidence is not required, which is warranted at the time of conclusion of the trial.
Having heard learned counsel or the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the appellants' side has filed a civil suit against the husband of the complainant and one another on 15.07.2021 at Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur Nagar and the instant complaint/application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been filed on 17.08.2021, wherein two occurrence i.e. on 09.07.2021 and 29.07.2021 has been shown. There is no doubt that the allegations which have been levelled in the complaint as well as in the statement of the prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. primafacie attracting the ingredients of offences wherein the appellants have been summoned.
The law is well-settled with regard to the summoning of accused person (s) on the basis of complaint, as required in the complaint case, laid down by Supreme Court in the cases of 'Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 1976 SUPREME COURT 1947, Smt. Nagawwa v/s Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi & others, AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 1747, Bhushan Kumar and Anr v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr, AIR 1998 S.C. 128, M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others' and at the stage of summoning only sufficient grounds and primafacie case is required to be seen and it is not permissible for the Court to meticulously appreciate the evidence as is required at the time of culmination of trial or for conviction.
Having regard to the law placed above, in the considered opinion of this Court, no illegality may be attached to the impugned order, whereby the appellants have been summoned and, thus, the prayer of the appellants so far as the setting aside of the summoning order is concerned, the same is, hereby, refused.
At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellants while drawing the attention of this Court towards Para No. 12 of the appeal submits that the trial Court in violation of the settled principles enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme court in various judgments for issuance of non-bailable warrants without service of any earlier process on the appellants have issued non-bailable warrants causing unnecessary apprehension in the mind of the appellants that they may be arrested in lieu of the warrants issued by the trial Court.
Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant appeal filed by the appellants is finally disposed of with the direction that if within 30 days from today, the appellants appear/surrender before the Special Court and move regular bail application under Section 437, 439 Cr.P.C., the Special Court shall be under an obligation to dispose of the same, after providing an opportunity of being heard to the parties, strictly in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satendra Kumar Antil (supra) and Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I. through Director : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 941.
It is further provided that while considering the plea of bail of the appellants the trial Court shall pay due regard to the fact that the appellants, who are eight in numbers have been summoned in a complaint case and a civil suit between the parties is stated to be pending.
It is also provided that to facilitate the appellants, who appears to be the family members of the same family, the non-bailable warrants issued against them by the trial Court, shall remain in abeyance for 30 days from today or till the appearance of the appellants before the trial Court, whichever is earlier.
Order Date :- 1.5.2023 Praveen