Allahabad High Court
Anil Kumar Upadhyay And 7 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 May, 2022
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved On : 18.04.2022
Delivered On : 09.05.2022
Court No. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5201 of 2021
Appellant :- Anil Kumar Upadhyay And 7 Others
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Suresh Kumar
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 14A(1) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred as SC/ST Act) against the summoning order dated 18.01.2021, passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jaunpur in Complaint Case No. 09 of 2019 (Sadari vs. Anil Kumar Upadhyay and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC and 3 (1) (Da), 3 (1) (Dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Badlapur, District Jaunpur, whereby the appellants have been summoned for above referred offences.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that impugned order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside. It has been argued that the allegation of the complainant that on 05.02.1992 the Civil Court has pronounced the judgment regarding disputed land in favour of complainant, is thoroughly false. In this connection learned counsel has referred documents of civil litigation between the parties, which have been annexed as Annexure-5 to this appeal. In his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the complainant has not specified any date of incident. It has been submitted that there is no reliable evidence that appellants have used any caste indicative words and thus, no case under SC/ST Act is made out. In fact, appellants are recorded tenure holder of the disputed land and they have not demolished any house of complainant. The statement of witnesses, examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C, were also referred and it has been submitted that the allegations made by the alleged witnesses, are thoroughly false and the matter has not been considered by the Court below properly and that no reasons have been assigned for summoning of appellants. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned order being against facts and law, is liable to be set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has argued that there is evidence against the appellants that they have assaulted the complainant and insulted him by using caste indicative words and that his house was demolished by JCB machine. Learned counsel submitted that even if there was civil litigation between the parties, it has no concern with the alleged incident and that the Court below has passed the impugned order by considering all the facts of case and law.
5. I have considered rival submissions and perused the record.
6. It is well settled that at the stage of summoning the accused on the basis of a private complaint all that is required is a satisfaction by the Magistrate that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused in the light of the records made available and the evidence adduced by the complainant. At that stage the Magistrate has to find out whether prima facie case made out against the accused or not. The Magistrate is not required to meticulously appreciate the evidence at the stage of 203/204 Cr.P.C. All that the Magistrate has to do is to see whether on a cursory perusal of the complaint and the evidence recorded during preliminary enquiry under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. that there is prima facie evidence in support of charge levelled against the accused. The Magistrate / Court has to see whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused and in that process the court is not to weigh the evidence meticulously. However, the order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto.
7. In Jagdish Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Another (2004) 4 SCC 432, it was held as under:-
"10. ....The taking of cognizance of the offence is an area exclusively within the domain of a Magistrate. At this stage, the Magistrate has to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction, can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of inquiry. At the stage of issuing the process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons."
8. Thus, it is clear that at the stage of summoning the accused on the basis of a private complaint the Magistrate / court has to satisfy itself that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused in the light of the material on record and the evidence adduced by the complainant. The Magistrate has to find out whether prima facie case is made out against the accused or not, however it is equally desirable that the order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto.
9. In the instant case, the allegations have been levelled against the appellants that they have come with a JCB machine and abused the complainant and his family members by using words ''chamar siyar' and assaulted the complainant and his family members. It was also alleged that the appellants/accused have demolished the residential hut and house of the complainant by JCB machine and also destroyed his house hold articles. No doubt there was civil litigation between the parties and appellants claim that civil Court has passed order in their favour regarding disputed land but the manner in which the house of complainant was demolished, can hardly be justified. The fact that in the alleged incident JCB machine was used to demolish the house of complainant and the incident was witnessed by the persons, who have been examined as witness under section 202 CrPC, goes to show that the incident took place in public view. As stated above, at the stage of summoning only it is to be seen whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons for proceedings further or not. The complainant has reiterated the said allegations in his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The witnesses, examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C, have also supported the version of complainant. The Court below has considered the entire facts and summoned the appellants by a reasoned order. No material illegality or perversity could be shown in the impugned order.
10. Considering entire material on record, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out and thus the impugned order is upheld. However, it is directed that in case the appellants surrender before the Court concerned and move an application for bail in accordance with law within a period of 45 days from today, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.
11. With the aforesaid observations, the instant appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 09.5.2022
A. Tripathi
