Allahabad High Court
Smt. Neelam Nagar vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 15 May, 2023
Bench: Mohd. Faiz Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:105173
Court No. - 81
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1790 of 2023
Appellant :- Smt. Neelam Nagar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Anurag Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ankit Singh
Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
Heard Sri Anurag Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Ankit Singh, learned counsel appearing for opposite party nos. 2 to 6.
The instant Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been moved by the appellantSmt. Neelam Nagar with the prayer to set aside the judgment/order dated 16.01.2023 passed by Additional District and Session Judge, Court No. II/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Kanpur Dehat, in Application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in Criminal Case No. 613 of 2022, (Smt. Neelam Nagar Vs. Rahish and others) Police Station, Bhoganipur, District Kanpur Dehat.
Learned counsel for the appellant while referring to the order dated 16.01.2023 submits that the Special Court has committed manifest illegality in rejecting the application moved by the appellant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., as at the stage of directing an investigation, as contemplated under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the duty of the Special Court or the Magistrate, as the case may be, is of only assessing as to whether there are cognizable offences emerging from the contents of the application and it is not permissible to appreciate the evidence or material placed with the application and, thus, the Special Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction and have passed a patent illegal order which is liable to be set aside.
Learned A.G.A. however supported the impugned order.
Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos. 2 to 6 vehemently submits that the appellant and his family is in habit of filing false criminal cases and this case was another incident of filing a fake case which has rightly been rejected by the Special Court and no illegality has been committed by the Special Court while rejecting the request of the appellant for investigation.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that by passing the impugned order the Special Court has assigned reasons for not directing the investigation requested by appellant/complainant.
The law with regard to the manner in which the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are to be dealt with is now no res-integra and the same has been set at rest by various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court and in this regard the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of U.P.; MANU/SC/0344/2015 : AIR 2015 SC 1758, Mohd. Yousuf Vs. Afaq Jahan (Smt.) and another; MANU/SC/8888/2006 : (2006) 1 SCC 627, Minu Kumari and another Vs. State of Bihar and others MANU/SC/8098/2006 : 2006 (4) SCC 359, a Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Ram Babu Gupta Vs. State of U.P. reported in MANU/UP/0861/2001 and a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in 'Sukhwasi Vs. State of U.P. & others'; MANU/UP/1115/2007: ACC 2007 (59) 739, may be recalled, wherein it is propounded that even commission of cognizable offences are reflected from the contents of an application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate or the Special Court, as the case may be, is not bound to order for investigation and it is obligatory on the part of the Magistrate or the Special Court, as the case may be, to visualize as to why the investigation is required in the allegations.
Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case, the trial Court/Special Court may refuse investigation, may treat the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., as complaint and may enter into the procedure prescribed under Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Recently a Hon'ble full Bench of this Court in 'Naresh Kumar Valmiki Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.' reported in MANU/UP3410/2022 as well as Hon'ble Division Bench in 'Gyanendra Maurya Vs. Union of India' reported in MANU/UP/0238/2023 has laid down the ratio that the application moved under Section 156(3) may be treated as complaint and otherwise the Special Court constituted under the S.C./S.T. Act, may also take cognizance of the offences under Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C.
The above legal position would evidently manifest that whenever an application or complaint is moved before the Special Court, the Special Court may treat the same as complaint, may order for investigation as required under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and may rejected the same. However, the order passed by the Special Court must be reasoned one.
As said earlier, the impugned order passed by the Special Court is reasoned one and shows application of mind and I do not find any illegality therein and thus the same is affirmed.
Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant appeal is finally disposed of with the direction that the appellant/complainant if advised may move an appropriate complaint before the Special Court and if such complaint is moved within a reasonable time to say within two weeks from today, the trial Court shall be under an obligation to proceed strictly in accordance with law and procedure as provided under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C.
Order Date :- 15.5.2023
Imtiyaz
