Allahabad High Court
Smt. Geeta vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 8 May, 2023
Bench: Mohd. Faiz Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 81
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 638 of 2023
Appellant :- Smt. Geeta
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Arvind Kumar,Love Lesh Kumar Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Nishad,Rishikesh Tripathi
Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
Heard Shri Love Lesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Rajesh Kumar Nishad, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 and 4, Shri Rishikesh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.5 to 7 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellant- Smt. Geeta with the prayer to allow the present criminal appeal and set-aside the judgment and order dated 28.11.2022 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST) Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Banda in Special Criminal Misc. Case No. 113 of 2019 (Smt. Geeta vs. Naim), under Section 203 Cr.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Banda and to direct the learned trial Court/Special Court to issue summon against the opposite party nos. 2 to 7.
Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submits that by passing the impugned order the trial Court has committed manifest illegality in appreciating the material available on record and at the stage of summoning the duty of the trial Court was only to see a primafacie case. However, the trial Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in entering into the area of appreciation of evidence which could only be done at the stage of trial and, thus, the material illegality has been committed by the trial Court. Thus, the impugned order whereby the complaint of the appellant has been dismissed under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. is patently absurd, illegal and the same be set-aside.
Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that there is no illegality or to say any irregularity in the order passed by the trial Court.
Learned counsels appearing for the opposite party no.3, 4 and 5 to 7 vehemently submits that no illegality has been committed by the trial Court in dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant, as the duty of the trial Court was to assess the complaint made by the appellant on the touchstone of probability, as provided under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. and a detailed order has been passed by the trial Court and reasons have been given, as required under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. for not summoning the accused persons and, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned summoning order.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the appellant before the Special Court, stating therein that on 14.03.1996 (23 years before moving of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.) sexual assault was made by accused Naim Mohsin. However, the same was settled amicably and the marriage of the appellant was solemnized with the accused Naim Mohsin on 15.03.1996 and, therefore, they were living as husband and wife and they were also blessed with two daughters during the course of marriage. Thereafter on 17.11.2018 the accused Naim Mohsin had attempted to abduct the appellant from the premises of Civil Court, Banda and also addressed her with castiest remarks and also that on 20.012019 accused Naim Mohsin had entered into her house and after addressing her with castiest remarks intimidated her and also sexually assaulted.
The trial Court treated the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as complaint and after recording the statement of the prosecutrix and her witnesses and after discussing the various aspects of the matter came to the conclusion that no primafacie case is emerging against the accused persons and, thus, dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C.
I have perused the impugned order passed by the Special Court and found that cogent reasons has been given by the Special Court for dismissing the complaint. The appellant/complainant is admittedly the wife of the accused Naim Mohsin and it is admitted to the complainant that she was married to him in the year 1996 and, thereafter they were living as husband and wife and two daughters have also born out of this wedlock. The incident is shown to have occurred within the premises of Civil Court, Banda and the Special Court is of the view that there is sufficient presence of the police force in the Civil Court Premises and, therefore, the incident, as shown in the complaint is highly improbable.
The trial court is also of the view that since 1996 till 2018 the appellant/complainant had remained with the accused persons, as she admittedly had solemnized marriage with one of the accused in 1996 and, therefore, the allegations are highly improbable and could not be believed.
I have perused the whole record and the reasons given by the Special Court for dismissing the complaint, I am in agreement with the reasons given by the Special Court and keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality or to say any irregularity in the impugned order. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant is dismissed for the reasons given herein-before.
Order Date :- 8.5.2023
Praveen
