Allahabad High Court
Smt. Shanti vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 3 May, 2023
Bench: Mohd. Faiz Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 81
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3618 of 2023
Appellant :- Smt. Shanti
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Shiromani Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
Heard Shri Vimal Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Shri Ram Shiromani Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Having regard to the order intended to the passed, the service of notice to the opposite party nos. 2 to 7 is hereby dispensed with, as the opposite party nos. 2 to 7 shall not be adversely affected by the order intended to be passed.
The instant appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellant- Smt. Shanti with the prayer to allow the present criminal appeal and set-aside the judgment and order dated 02.03.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Moradabad in Criminal Misc. Case No. 91 of 2022, (Smt. Shanti vs. Satyapal and others), under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., Police Station Bilari, District Moradabad and to direct the S.H.O. to lodge the first information report against the opposite party nos. 2 to 7.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court by passing the impugned order has rejected the prayer of the appellant/informant for investigation of the allegations mentioned therein without appreciating the facts in right perspective while the commission of cognizable offences as well as the offences pertaining to the SC/ST Act were evident in the application moved by the appellant under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Thus, patent illegality has been committed by the Trial Court/Special Court.
On being controverted, it is not disputed by learned counsel for the appellant that even after rejection of the application moved by the appellant under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the filing of complaint is not barred.
Learned A.G.A., however, has supported the impugned order passed by the Special Court.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is transpired that the appellant who had preferred an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C before the Special Court for investigation of the allegations of the application, by registering an F.I.R. and its investigation appears to be aggrieved by the fact that the Special Court has rejected the request of appellant for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and so much so the application moved by the appellant under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. has not even been considered as a complaint under Section 2 (d) of the Cr.P.C. and, thus, according to learned counsel for the appellant, patent illegality has been committed by the trial Court.
During the course of deliberations, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the grievance of the appellant would be redressed if liberty is granted to the appellant to file appropriate complaint before the Special Court.
Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, the instant appeal is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court that if any complaint case with regard to the incident mentioned in the application earlier moved by the appellant under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is moved within a reasonable time to say within three weeks from today, the Special Court shall deal the same in accordance with the procedure provided under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Order Date :- 3.5.2023
Praveen
