Allahabad High Court
Islam Ahmad & Another vs State Of U.P. & Another on 22 March, 2021
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 15
Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 1556 of 2021
Applicant :- Islam Ahmad & Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Satendra Nath Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,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 applicant has prayed to quash/set aside the impugned charge sheet no. 01 of 2020 dated 09.08.2020 in re Special Session Case No.41 of 2021 under Section 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3(1) (Da), 3(1) (Dha) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, arising out of case crime no.266of 2020,Police Station Lakhimpur Kheri and summoning order dated 20.1.2021 passed by IInd Additional Session Judge/Special Session Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lakhimpur Kheri.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the trial court has taken the cognizance of the offence in a mechanical way and has not considered the material collected by the Investigating Officer in right perspective and even if the case of the prosecution is taken on its face value the provision pertaining to SC/ST Act would not be attracted.
It is further submitted that in many cases Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that innocent person should not be subjected to face criminal trial without there being any cogent evidence/material available against them and the trial court has passed the summoning order in utter disregard to these 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 and the same be quashed.
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 an order of this Court dated 15.07.2019, passed by learned Single Judge in Case (U/s 482 Cr.P.C.) No.4941 of 2019, wherein a similar objection was raised on behalf of the State and the same was rejected and the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was held maintainable. Another judgment, which has been relied on 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 process of law.
In nut-shell the submissions of learned counsel for applicants is that there may be some exceptional cases where the Court may be 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).
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only primafacie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq, another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2017 SC 4843.
Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for quashing the charge-sheet, summoning order as well as all proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby refused.
A seven judges Bench of this Court in the case 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 various directions to criminal Courts for expeditious disposal of Bail applications. The ratio of above mentioned decisions is quite clear that, in the backdrop of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as the personal liberty of a person is at stake, the bail applications should be decided, expeditiously.
In backdrop of aforesaid decisions and keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants, the application is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court that if the applicants appear and surrender before the Court below within 20 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. .
Order Date :- 22.3.2021/Madhu
