Allahabad High Court
Leela And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 July, 2019
Bench: Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 82
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2520 of 2013
Revisionist :- Leela And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajesh Pachauri
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Ashutosh Gupta,Shashank Maurya
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 Sri Ashutosh Gupta and learned AGA for State of UP are present.
None is present on behalf of the revisionists on revised call.
Heard.
This revision has been filed against judgment and order dated 3.8.2013 passed by learned ACJM, Court No.4, Mathura in Case No.1155-A of 2011 'Tekraj vs. Leela' under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act by means of which learned court has rejected the discharge application of the revisionists and has also summoned them under Sections 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act.
From the side of the revisionists, a discharge application was given under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. stating that the complaint case was filed on false grounds and there was no motive for the revisionists for committing the offence. The words used for committing the offence under Sections 504 and 506 IPC have not been specifically stated in the complaint and only oral evidence has been given by Opposite Party No.2 and there is no documentary evidence in support thereof. There is no evidence available against the revisionists for framing charges. Against the discharge applications, Opposite Party No.2 filed an objection under Section 17 (B) stating that the complainant is a person belonging to weaker class whereas the accused persons are very influential and on 11.11.2008 they had demolished the drain (nali) and joined the same in their land. The accused persons also committed maar-peet against him using castist words and also insulted him. Therefore, alongwith Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Section 3 (1)(X) SC/ST Act is required to be included at the time of framing of charge.
It appears that three witnesses were examined under Section 244 Cr.P.C. and all of them supported the version of the complainant and also stated that while abusing the complainant, the accused persons used castist words which constituted offence under Section 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act.
On the basis of evidence on record, learned trial court found no force in the discharge application of the revisionists and rejected the same and directed the accused persons to be present for framing charge for the said offence.
Aggrieved by the impugned order, this revision has been filed stating that the case was registered on the basis of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was subsequently registered as complaint case and after due inquiry under Chapter-XV Cr.P.C. the revisionists/accused persons were summoned for offence under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC. Learned trial court has rejected the discharge application without applying its judicial mind and has also included Section 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act which is not permissible. Learned ACJM has only jurisdiction to either reject or allow the discharge application and he has no authority to include new section. Learned ACJM has also ignored the report of the Revenue Inspector showing that there was no drain on the spot and it was a road on the spot. PW-3 has categorically stated that the allegations of Opposite Party No.2 are false. Learned court below has passed the impugned order without jurisdiction and has committed manifest error of law. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
None is present on behalf of the revisionists on revised call.
It appears from the record that on 2.5.2019 also, the revisionists were not represented in the Court and therefore this Court vacated the stay order granted on 3.10.2013. Despite that order, today also, the revisionists are absent.
Learned trial court has rejected the discharge application filed under Section 245 Cr.P.C. In rejecting the said application, the trial court has concluded that there was sufficient evidence on record not only to frame charges against the accused persons for offence under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC but also to frame charge against the revisionists for offence 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act. There appears to be no error of jurisdiction in the impugned order or any requirement for interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. No fruitful purpose would be served by interfering in the impugned order.
In view of the above, the revision has no force. Hence the present criminal revision is dismissed.
This order be communicated to the trial court for information.
Order Date :- 9.7.2019/Madhurima
