Smt. Seema vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And 6 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 15125 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:104797
 
Court No. - 81
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9735 of 2022
 

 
Appellant :- Smt. Seema
 
Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 6 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Akhilesh Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Chandan Sharma
 

 
Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

Heard Shri Akhilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Vibhor Arora, Advocate holding brief of Shri Chandan Sharma, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.7 as well as learned A.G.A. appearing for opposite party nos.2 to 6 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. Seema with the prayer to allow the present criminal appeal and set-aside the judgment and order dated 01.11.2022 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Sambhal at Chandausi in Criminal Misc. Application No. 23 of 2022 (Smt. Seema vs. Mamta Gupta and others) CNR No. UPSL01005323 of 2022.

Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant vehemently submits that the Special Court has committed manifest illegality in passing the impugned order in view of the specific provision, as contained under Section 479 of the Cr.P.C. and the Special Court should not have heard and decided the instant case and, thus, the impugned order has been passed on the basis of biasness.

It is also submitted that the impugned order has been passed in utter disregard to the settled legal position that at the stage of taking a decision for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., only emergence of cognizable offences are to be seen and at that stage the Special Court or the Magistrate, as the case may be, may not hold any inquiry and while the application moved by the appellant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was disclosing the commission of cognizable offences, the Special Court must have directed for investigation, as provided under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Thus, the impugned order is bad and is liable to be set-aside.

Learned A.G.A., however, supported the order passed by the Special Court on the ground that the act of the public authorities termed as 'illegal' by the appellant was committed by them while acting in their official capacity and the same may not be termed as personal. Moreover, the appellant failed to avail various remedies available to him with regard to the inclusion of her name in the voter list and it appears that the appellant deliberately remained silent at appropriate stages of correction of the voter list in order to carve out a false case against the public authorities and, thus, a legal order has been passed by the Special Judge and there is no requirement of any interference therein.

Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.7 vehemently submits that the appellant/complainant has unnecessarily made him a party in the instant appeal while the opposite party no.7 being the Presiding Officer of the Special Court, SC/ST Act has earlier passed an order dismissing an application moved by appellant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the same cause of action and the same was challenged by the appellant by filing another appeal which is pending for disposal before this Court and there was no necessity for the appellant to have approached the Special Court again, by filing another application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the same cause of action.

It is further submitted that the provisions of Section 479 Cr.P.C. may not be attracted against opposite party no.7 having regard to the explanation appended with this Section, which protects the act of a public servant or Judge or the Magistrate, with regard to any act committed in public capacity and the order earlier passed by the opposite party no.7 was passed, as the Special Judge of the Court of SC/ST Act and the same could never be deemed as passed in personal capacity and the opposite party no.7 has been unnecessarily made a party in this appeal also in order to pressurize a judicial officer, who is the presiding officer of the Special Court of SC/ST Act.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is transpired that by passing the impugned order of date 01.11.2022, an application moved by the appellant/complainant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been dismissed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sambhal, wherein various allegations have been levelled against the district authorities, which were instrumental in preparing the voter list pertaining to the 'Assembly Elections' of the State held in the year 2022. During the course of deliberations, it was admitted by learned counsel for the appellant that no legal recourse with regard to the inclusion of the name of the appellant in the voter list has been made by the appellant at the relevant time when the voter list was displayed.

It is also argued with manifest force that the opposite party no.7 was personally interested in the instant case and, therefore, he could not have disposed of/decided this case and a patent illegality has been committed by him.

Having gone through the allegations levelled in the application moved by the appellant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., it would emerge that allegations against the opposite party no.7, who is the 'Presiding Officer of the Special Court, SC/ST Act, Sambhal, are to the tune that by passing an earlier order dated 12.07.2022 whereby the District Magistrate, Sambhal was directed to hold an enquiry, the Special Court has committed manifest illegality. However, it is admitted that with regard to that order passed in that application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., a Criminal Appeal bearing No. 8525 of 2022 has already been filed by the appellant and is pending before this Court for disposal.

Thus, the order, whereby the District Magistrate was directed to hold an inquiry, is not the subject matter of the instant appeal and even if the allegations levelled in the application moved by the appellant, pertaining to which the impugned order has been passed, are taken on its face, it would emerge that allegations have been levelled that by passing earlier order in another application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the appellant, the Special Judge had has committed manifest illegality, whereby the District Magistrate was directed to hold an enquiry. Another appeal is stated to have been filed by the appellant with regard to the final order passed in that case, which is stated to be pending before this Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, by passing a judicial order, which may be extremely erroneous, the 'Presiding Officer' or Judge of a Court can never be termed as having personal interest there in and the said act of the Presiding Officer of the Court/Judge or Magistrate has also been protected by the explanation appended with Section 479 of the Cr.P.C.

Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order whereby an inquiry was contemplated by the District Magistrate, has been passed in different proceedings and has already been challenged by the appellant by filing an appeal before this Court and is not the subject matter of the instant case and there was absolutely no need for the appellant to attribute the allegations of the kind, levelled in the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the Special Judge, SC/ST Act. It appears that the said allegations have been levelled intentionally and only for the purpose of pressurizing the Presiding Judge of the Special Court, SC/ST Act, Sambhal.

Thus, there was absolutely no need for the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sambhal to have recused himself from hearing of the instant case and the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant in this regard is liable to be rejected outrightly.

Coming to the factual matrix, it is admitted by learned counsel for the appellant that with regard to the earlier order passed with regard to the same dispute on an application moved by the appellant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., an appeal had already been preferred by appellant which is pending before this Court. Thus, there was absolutely no need to file another application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for the same cause of action on the same facts alleging allegations against the Presiding Judge of he Special Court without any justifiable reason and the same appears to have been filed to put undue pressure on Presiding Judge of SC/ST Court by levelling various allegations against him.

Having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the impugned order in totality as well as the allegations levelled therein, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order of date 01.11.2022. The allegations levelled in the application moved by the appellant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are patently absurd and highly improbable and were pertaining to the official duties of the public authorities as well as with regard to the judicial orders passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sambhal on judicial side, which has already been challenged by appellant by filing an criminal appeal, which is admittedly pending before this Court and thus, no illegality appears to have been committed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sambhal in passing the impugned order. In result, the appeal filed by the appellant appears to be without any merits and dismissed as such.

Coming to the conduct of the appellant in not only moving second application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Special Court with regard to the same cause of action pertaining to which his earlier application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the same Court as well as also in levelling erroneous and highly absurd allegations against a senior judicial officer, it appears that the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., whereon the impugned order has been passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act has been filed with the ulterior motive of pressurizing a judicial officer, who was discharging his duty of dispensation of justice.

Thus, the act of filing second application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., while the first application rejected by the Special Judge on the same set of facts had already been challenged, by appellant by filing an appeal before this Court, this Court is not having any other opinion than to observe that the said application (second application) under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the appellant only for the purpose of putting undue pressure on the Presiding Judge of the Special Court, SC/ST Act, Sambhal.

The conduct of the appellant in doing such illegal act is required to be reprimanded and may not be left without being penalized and required to be dealt with iron hand, as the same appears to have been d one deliberately to harass and pressurize a judicial officer, unnecessarily who was discharging his duties in a fair manner.

A time has come to protect the district judiciary from baseless allegations, as the same is the first interface of the litigants and a message must be communicated to one an all that Courts of Justice will not be allowed to be disrupted by alleging baseless and absurd allegations against the judicial officers of District Judiciary and an institutional approach is desired to be adopted, which must penalize such behaviour.

Thus, the instant appeal is dismissed with the cost of Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand only) which shall be deposited by the appellant within 30 days from today with the High Court Legal Services Authority, Allahabad/Prayagraj and if the said cost is not paid within 30 days from today, the same shall be recoverable as an arrears of land revenue by the concerned Collector under intimation to this Court.

The Registrar General of this Court shall ensure that a copy of this order be sent to the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sambhal for compliance in letter and spirit and to the Collector, District Sambhal.

Order Date :- 15.5.2023

Praveen