Allahabad High Court
Jagdish And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 March, 2019
Bench: Umesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1385 of 2019
Appellant :- Jagdish And 4 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Prem Shankar,Brajesh Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14A (1) of The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'Act, 1989') has been filed on behalf of the appellants challenging the order dated 28.01.2019 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Bulandshahr, in S.T. No. 317 of 2015 (State v. Hariom), arising out of Case Crime No. 48 of 2015, under Sections 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)(V) of Act, 1989, Police Station - B.B. Nagar, District - Bulandshahr, whereby on the application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Code'), the appellants have been summoned for the offences punishable under the aforesaid sections.
Learned counsel for the appellants contended that although the appellants were named in the F.I.R., but after investigation, the police submitted final report against the appellants. On the basis of statements of P.W.1 Vijay Pal, P.W.2 Rajpal and P.W.3 Ganga Ram, the appellants have been summoned for the offences punishable under the aforesaid sections. Relying on the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Brijendra Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2017) 7 SCC 706, learned counsel for the appellants further contended that main accused Hari Om, against whom charge-sheet has been filed by the police, has been exonerated by the witnesses of fact during their statements before the court. Accordingly, the appellants cannot be summoned on application under Section 319 of the Code.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court.
Hon'ble Apex Court in Brijendra Singh's case (supra) held that power under Section 319 of the Code is discretionary and extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly only in those case where circumstances of the case so warrant.
In the present case, the appellants are named in the first information report. Witnesses of fact - P.W.1 Vijay Pal and P.W.2 Rajpal have supported the involvement of the appellants in this case. Only because both the witnesses of fact exonerated accused Hariom, it cannot be said be said that the impugned order passed by the court below is illegal or beyond jurisdiction.
In view of above, I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the trial court, which is based on substance and sound reasoning.
Resultantly, the instant appeal stands dismissed summarily.
However, it is directed that in case the appellants appear before the court below and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 5.3.2019
I. Batabyal
