Allahabad High Court
Sudha vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 19 May, 2023
Bench: Mohd. Faiz Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:109937
Court No. - 81
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3288 of 2023
Appellant :- Sudha
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Love Lesh Kumar Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
As per the report of the Incharge, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda of date 29.04.2023, the opposite party no.3 has been personally served, while the opposite party no.2 has been informed telephonically.
Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the opposite party no.2 has been served sufficiently.
Heard Shri Love Lesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the appellant 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 Sudha with the prayer to allow the criminal appeal and set-aside the impugned judgment and order dated 07.02.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Banda in Criminal Misc. Case No. 11 of 2023 (Sudha vs. Jugraj Yadav and others), Police Station- Baberu, District- Banda and to direct the S.H.O. Baberu, District Banda to lodge the first information report against the opposite party no.2 and 3.
Learned counsel for the appellant while drawing the attention of this Court towards the impugned order dated 07.02.2023, 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.
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 on the ground that at the time of taking a decision pertaining to the passing of an order for investigation, various factors are to be considered including the necessity of investigation and it appears that the application has been given for the purpose of pressurizing the opposite parties/accused persons.
Be that as it may, 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, Aleque Padamsee & others vs. Union of India (UOI) (2007) 6 SCC 171 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 the 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 Full Bench Judgment of this Court in 'Naresh Kumar Valmiki Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.' reported in MANU/UP3410/2022 as well as a Divison Bench Judgment of this Court 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 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
Praveen
