Allahabad High Court
Shiv Pujan & Others vs State Of U.P. & Another on 12 March, 2021
Bench: Mohd. Faiz Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 29
Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 1174 of 2021
Applicant :- Shiv Pujan & Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Anuj Dayal,Ankit Kumar Trivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
Heard learned counsel for applicants as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for State and perused the record.
By filing this 482 Cr.P.C. application, the applicants have prayed to quash the summoning order dated 9.11.2017, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd, Lakhimpur Kheri in Complaint Case No.2 of 2016 ( Pankaj v. Shivpujan and others), under Sections 323,504 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as well as the entire proceedings of the case.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the trial court while summoning the applicants by passing summoning order dated 9.11.2017 has not considered the settled law with regard to the summoning of accused persons to face trial in criminal proceedings and has summoned the applicants to face trial on the basis of insufficient evidence.
It is further submitted that in many cases Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that innocent person should not be subjected to trial without there being any cogent evidence/material available against them and the trial court has passed the summoning order in utter disregard to the settled principles, hence the summoning order as well as all the proceedings of the case pending before the trial court are nothing but the abuse of the process of the Court.
Learned Additional Government Advocate, however on the other hand, raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the proceedings in view of Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and submits that as a general rule the summoning order could only be challenged by filing an appeal under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and, therefore, the instant proceedings are not maintainable.
It is also submitted that at the time of passing of the impugned summoning order there was sufficient material available before the trial court and it could not be said that the impugned order passed by the trial court has not been passed on the basis of evidence/material made available before it and, therefore, there is no substance in the submissions of leaned counsel for applicants.
During the course of submissions, reliance was also placed by the learned counsel for applicants on a Single Judge order of this Court dated 15.07.2019, passed in Case (U/s 482 Cr.P.C.) No.4941 of 2019, wherein a similar objection was raised on behalf of the State was rejected and the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was held maintainable. Another judgment, which has been relied by learned counsel for applicant is Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and another, (2020) 10 SCC 710, wherein in paras 19, 20 and 21 it has been emphasized that there may be certain class of cases which may be utterly false and those cases can be a ground for interference by the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., however the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised in exceptional cases for the sole purpose of preventing misuse of the provisions of law.
In nut-shell the submissions of learned counsel for applicants is that there may be some exceptional cases where the Court may inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., however as a general rule, the mater of summoning order has to be challenged under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
So far as the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the State with regard to the maintainability of the instant petition is concerned, the same has been answered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma (supra). However having regard to the facts of the present case wherein it prima facie appears that the trial court has taken care of the caution given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in many judgments with regard to the summoning of the accused persons in complaint cases, the trial court has considered the complaint as well as the evidence of the complainant as well as his witneses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, in light of the statement which has been recorded by the trial court under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and having an eye on the settled principles with regard to the summoning of accused persons in criminal trial to the tune that at the stage of summoning only prima facie case is required and the evidence should not be as strong as required for conviction, I do not find any illegality in the summoning order passed by the trial court.
Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, the prayer with regard to the quashing of the summoning order and whole proceedings of the case pending before the trial court, is hereby refused.
At this juncture learned counsel for applicants submits that generally disposal of bail application in the cases pertaining to S.C./S.T. Act take a long time and it is apprehended that bail application of applicants to be filed before the court concerned will take long time for disposal.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) and in Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0274/2017 have given elaborate guidelines to all the criminal courts of the country for early disposal of the bail applications. Therefore, there is no reason to presume that the disposal of bail application moved by the applicants would take long time. Therefore, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case it is observed that, if any, application for bail is moved by the applicants, the same shall be disposed of by the trial court with expedition, in accordance with law.
In view of above decisions and keeping in view the entirety of facts, the petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 12.3.2021
Irfan
