Allahabad High Court
Shravan Kumar Kanaujia vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 19 May, 2023
Bench: Mohd. Faiz Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:110086
Court No. - 81
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3431 of 2023
Appellant :- Shravan Kumar Kanaujia
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Chandra Prakash Pandey,Brij Kishor Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,B.S. Pandey,Kartikey Pandey
Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
Heard Shri Mohd. Azam holding brief for Shri Brij Kishor Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Kartikey Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.2, 3, 4 and 6 as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.
The instant appeal under Section 14-A(1) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant, namely, Shravan Kumar with the prayer to allow the present appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 24.02.2023 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Basti in Criminal Case No. 20 of 2023, arising out of Application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.), Police Station Gaur, District Basti (Shravan Kuamr Kanaujia Vs. Ram Bhawan Yadav and others).
Learned counsel for the appellant while drawing the attention of this Court towards the impugned order dated 21.11.2022, whereby the application moved by the appellant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been rejected/dismissed by the special court, vehemently submits that the trial court/special court had committed manifest illegality in rejecting the request of the appellant for investigation of the allegations mentioned therein and the order whereby the request of the appellant to get the allegations investigated is rejected is liable to be set aside.
Learned AGA on the other hand submits that no illegality has been committed by the special court in passing the impugned order, as the duty of the special court was to assess the necessity of investigation and it is not so that in each and every case the special court or the Magistrate is bound to order for investigation. Learned AGA has relied on a Full Bench Judgment of this Court passed in Ram Babu Gupta Vs. State of U.P. reported in MANU/UP/0861/2001 as well as the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sukhwasi Vs. State of U.P. & others; MANU/UP/1115/2007: ACC 2007 (59) 739.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also opposed the submissions made on behalf of the appellant on the ground that no illegality has been committed by the special court in passing the impugned order.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that by passing the impugned order the application moved by the appellant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the special court and the reason for such dismissal has been given that prima facie the commission of the cognizable offence is not reflected from the contents of the application and already a civil litigation is pending between the parties. In nutshell the trial court did not find any necessity for investigation. The law with regard to the manner in which an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is to be dealt with is now no more res integra and the same has been settled by various judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of this Court, in this regard the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Court in Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of U.P.; MANU/SC/0344/2015 : AIR 2015 SC 1758 and in Mohd. Yousuf Vs. Afaq Jahan (Smt.) and another; MANU/SC/8888/2006 : (2006) 1 SCC 627 and Aleque Padamsee & others Vs. Union of India (UOI) (2007) 6 SCC 171 : MANU/SC/2975/2007 as well as Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Ram Babu Gupta Vs. State of U.P. reported in MANU/UP/0861/2001 as well as the Division Bench Judgement of this Court Sukhwasi Vs. State of U.P. & others; MANU/UP/1115/2007: ACC 2007 (59) 739 may be recalled, wherein it is provided that applications under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. are now coming in bulk and the Magistrate while considering the plea for investigation is duty bound to assess the necessity of investigation and it is not a compulsion for the Magistrate or special court to order for such investigation in each and every case wherein the commission of cognizable offences is emerging from the contents of application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Thus having regard to the law mentioned herein before as well as the peculiar factual matrix of this case, I do not find any illegality so far as the impugned order is concerned and the same is hereby affirmed.
However, keeping in view the law laid down by Division Benches of this Court in Naresh Kumar Valmiki Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in MANU/UP3410/2022 as well as in Gyanendra Maurya Vs. Union of India reported in MANU/UP/0238/2023, wherein it is opined that the special court with regard to the offences committed under S.C./S.T. Act may take cognizance under Section 190(1) (a) Cr.P.C., the instant appeal filed by the appellant is finally disposed of with the direction that if any complaint case is filed by the appellant, for which he is entitled otherwise, the trial court/special court shall be duty bound to proceed strictly in accordance with law and procedure provided under Chapter XV of Code of Criminal Procedure.
Order Date :- 19.5.2023
Muk
