Allahabad High Court
Smt. Sarita Devi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 May, 2023
Bench: Mohd. Faiz Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:112064
Court No. - 81
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2094 of 2023
Appellant :- Smt. Sarita Devi
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Alok Ranjan Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rajeev Tiwari
Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
Heard Shri Alok Ranjan Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Nitin Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri Rajeev Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 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 Smt. Sarita Devi with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 18.01.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kannauj in Complaint Case No. 600 of 2022 (Smt. Sarita Devi vs. Sudhir Kumar Dubey), Police Station Kannauj, District Kannauj.
Learned counsel for the appellant while drawing the attention of this Court towards the impugned order dated 18.01.2023, whereby the application moved by the appellant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been treated by the Special Court as complaint, 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 by treating the same as complaint and the order whereby the request of the appellant to get the allegations investigated is rejected and treated as complaint is liable to be set aside.
Learned A.G.A 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 A.G.A. 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 appearing for opposite party no.2 submits that no illegality or to say any irregularity has been committed by the Special Court and, thus, no interference is required in 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 treated as complaint by the Special Court. The only grievance of the appellant which appears to be that, he moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the same has been treated as complaint by passing the impugned order and order for investigation has not been passed.
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 application moved under Section 153(3) Cr.P.C..
Hon'ble 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, have opined that the Special Court with regard to the offences committed under S.C./S.T. Act may also take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. and application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. may also treated as complaint.
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. In result, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 22.5.2023
Praveen
