Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3457 (ALL)

Sheelu @ Jitendra Mishra v. State of U. P.

2014-11-20

AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT Akhtar Husain Khan,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused application moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. By filing this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. applicants have prayed to quash proceedings initiated on the basis of F.I.R. dated 3.3.2014 bearing Case Crime No.15 of 2014, under sections 323, 504 I.P.C. & section 3(1) X of S.C./S.T. Act, 1989, Police Station Chilla, District Banda and charge sheet dated 27.4.2014 bearing No. 22 of 2014, under sections 323, 504 I.P.C.& section 3(1) X of S.C./S.T. Act, 1989, Police Station Chilla, District Banda bearing Case No.539/IX/2014 pending before learned IInd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda. 3. Learned counsel for applicants contended that incident narrated in F.I.R. is totally false and F.I.R. has been lodged with malafide intention. Police has submitted charge sheet without sufficient evidence on false allegation. Learned counsel for applicants further contended that in view of Section 14 of S.C./S.T. Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 offence punishable under said Act shall be tried by Special Court. Therefore cognizance taken by A.C.J.M. is without jurisdiction. 4. In view of above contention learned counsel for applicants has prayed for quashing of proceedings of aforesaid criminal case. 5. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for applicants. 6. Accused applicants are named in F.I.R. and police has submitted charge sheet against accused applicants after investigation whereupon Magistrate has taken cognizance. Section 14 of S.C./S.T. Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 provides that the State Government shall, with the occurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify for each district a Court of Session to be a Special Court to try the offences under this Act. 7. Reading of Section 14 of said Act shows that State Government shall designate a court of Session with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court as Special Court to try offences under this Act. Thus it is apparent that the Special Court designated for trial of cases relating to this Act shall be a court of Session. 8. Thus it is apparent that the Special Court designated for trial of cases relating to this Act shall be a court of Session. 8. Section 193 of Cr.P.C. is relevant which is quoted below: "Cognizance of offences by Courts of Session - Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under this Code." 9. In view of above provisions Section 193 of Cr.P.C. it is apparent that no Court of Session Judge shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed by Magistrate. 10. Either in Section 14 of S.C./S.T. Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 or any where in the said Act. There is no provision to show that a Special Court is competent to take cognizance for offences under the Act. 11. In the case Moly Vs. State of Kerala A.I.R. 2004 Cr.L.J. S.C. 1890, Honourable Apex Court has held that the Special Judge appointed under the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under Section 3(1) (X) of the Act to take the cognizance directly and to issue process without the case being committed to it by competent magistrate. 12. In view of discussion made above it is apparent that Special Court designated for trial of offences under Section 14 of S.C./S.T. Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is a Court of Session and has no jurisdiction to take cognizance as a Court of original jurisdiction. Therefore Magistrate is only competent to take cognizance for offences punishable S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and to commit cases under said Act to the Court of Special Judge in accordance with provisions of Cr.P.C. 13. In view of discussion made above it is clear that Magistrate has committed no illegality or irregularity in taking cognizance on charge sheet submitted by police. 14. In view of discussion made above I am of the view that there is neither any illegality nor irregularity either in investigation made by police or in cognizance taken by Magistrate. 15. In view of discussion made above it is clear that Magistrate has committed no illegality or irregularity in taking cognizance on charge sheet submitted by police. 14. In view of discussion made above I am of the view that there is neither any illegality nor irregularity either in investigation made by police or in cognizance taken by Magistrate. 15. In view of above, I am of the view that no interference is required under section 482 Cr.P.C. 16. At this stage, learned counsel for applicants prayed that a direction should be made for expeditious disposal of bail application in view of principles laid down by Seven Judges Bench of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC). 17. A direction for expeditious disposal of bail application in view of principles laid down by this Court as well as by Apex Court in aforesaid pronouncements appears just. 18. In view of above, present application is disposed off with above direction and it is directed that if the applicants appear before Magistrate/Session court within one month from today and move bail application, Magistrate/Session court shall dispose of their bail application expeditiously in view of principles laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC). 19. With above direction application is finally disposed off.