Rahul Maurya And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 4884 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 45
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 972 of 2022
 

 
Appellant :- Rahul Maurya And 5 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Santosh Kr. Singh Paliwal
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sanjeev Kumar Shukla
 

 
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

Heard, Shri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. and Shri Sanjeev Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party No.2.

The instant Criminal Appeal under Section 14A(1) of SC/ST Act 1989 has been preferred by the appellants challenging the summoning order dated 04.12.2021 passed by the Special Judge(SC/ST Act), Azamgarh in compliant case No.75 of 2019, under Sections 323, 504, 452 IPC and 3(1) Da SC/ST Act, Police Station-Sidhari, District-Azamgarh.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is civil dispute between the parties, which is going on since long in regard to demarcation of the land. On account of the same earlier also incidents had happened in regard to which two First Information Reports were lodged by the appellants. He further submitted that on account of said rivalry the informant had filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 08.03.2019, which has been registered as complaint case and the summons have been issued. Therefore the appellants are constrained to approach this court. However after arguing at some length, learned counsel for the appellants restricted his prayer for a direction to grant him benefit of judgment and order dated 07.10.2021 of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) No.5191 of 2021 Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another as the offences alleged are in which punishment of below seven years is provided.

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 could not contradict the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants. Learned counsel for the opposite parties fairly conceded that there is a civil dispute between the parties. However, they submitted that the appellants are repeatedly trying to grab the property of the informant and lodging the First Information Reports.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record this court finds that the appellants have rightly been summoned as the commissioning of offences under Sections 323, 504, 452 IPC and 3(1) Da Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 are found, therefore, challenge to the impugned order is not sustainable, therefore prayer for quashing the order and the proceedings is declined. However, since the punishment provided for the offences, in which the appellants have been summoned, are below seven years, it is provided that in case, the appellants move bail application before the trial court within fifteen days' from today, the same shall be decided within two weeks thereafter, in the light of law laid down in the case of Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another (supra).

The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.

.

.

........................................... (Rajnish Kumar,J.)

Order Date :- 2.6.2022

Banswar