Dr. Suhel And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 8359 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 89
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2994 of 2022
 

 
Appellant :- Dr. Suhel And 3 Others
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Sunil Kumar Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Chaman Aara
 

 
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

The appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 14.12.2021 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Saharanpur in Complaint Case No. 1518 of 2021 "Vikram Singh Vs. Dr. Suhel and Others" u/s 323/504/506 I.P.C. and section 3(1)da SC/ST Act, 1989, Police Station-Gangoh, District Saharanpur, whereby court below has summoned the appellants.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned A. G.A. for the State and learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2. Perused the record of the case.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that impugned summoning order dated 14.12.2021 by which on a complaint case filed by respondent no. 2, the cognizance has been taken and the accused persons/appellants have been summoned u/s 323/504/506 I.P.C. and section 3(1)da of SC/ST Act. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case and there is no material evidence available on record and trial court without application of judicial mind as well as without considering the material available on record wrongly passed the impugned order.

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the submission of the appellants by submitting that court below after going through all the facts available on record, prima facie offence is made out against the appellants, passed the impugned cognizance and summoning order dated 14.12.2021 u/s 323/504/506 I.P.C. and section 3(1)da of SC/ST Act.

On due consideration to the argument advanced on the facts, particularly the complaint filed by the respondent no. 2 and statement of the complainant recorded u/s 200 Cr.P.C. dated 1.9.2021 and statement of Anuj Kumar (PW-1) recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C. reveals prima facie commission of offence by appellant nos. 1 to 4. At the stage of taking cognizance the Magistrate is required to see if there is prima facie case for taking cognizance or in the copy of the complaint and statement u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., which are on record shows adequate material to take cognizance of offence against the appellants. At the stage of taking cognizance, Magistrate is not required to go into deeper appreciation of the evidence.

The appeal filed by the appellants is mis-conceived, lacks merits and is accordingly rejected.

Order Date :- 28.7.2022

Vibha Singh