Rajendra Yadav And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 10600 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 86
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24611 of 2022
 
Applicant :- Rajendra Yadav And 4 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Bhaju Ram Pprasad Sharma,Arvind Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

Instant application has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Special Session Trial No. 390 of 2018, arising out of Complaint Case No.2657 of 2016, Guneshwary Vs. Rajendra Yadav and others, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1) (10)/3(2) (V-a) SC/ST Act, Police Station Brijamanganj, District Maharajganj, pending before Specil Judge (SC/ST Act), Court No.3, District Maharajganj. Further prayer is to set free the applicants from behind the bar.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned Magistrate while summoning the accused, has committed the gross error as the complaint is not maintainable in the case where the complaint is made under the SC/ST Act. He submits that provision envisaged under Rule 5(1) (b) of the SC/ST Rules, 1995 clearly indicates that F.I.R. can be lodged. If there is provision of lodging F.I.R. in the Rules itself then there can be no any other mode in proceeding with the matter. During the course of argument, he has also placed reliance on the Judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Soni Devi Vs. State of U.P. and ten others, 2022 0 Supreme (All) 192.

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State has no objection to the submissions aforesaid though he has submitted that the case of Soni Devi (supra), which has been cited by the learned counsel for the applicants, has been referred to the larger Bench for consideration.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the existing law as per ratio of the Sone Devi's case (supra), the provision of Rule 5(1) (b) is still intact and, as such, it was not open to the Magistrate to take cognizance in such matters on a complaint made by the complainant.

In such view of the matter, the order dated 3.12.2018 by the court below has summoned the applicants under Section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1) (10)/3(2) (V-a) SC/ST Act is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court concerned.

The applicants are permitted to press their application before the concerned authorities for lodging of the F.I.R.

With the aforesaid observations, the instant application is disposed off.

Order Date :- 18.8.2022

Ram Murti