Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2223 (ALL)

Ravi Prakash Alias Suraj v. State of U. P.

2023-09-26

SHAMIM AHMED

body2023
JUDGMENT Shamim Ahmed, J. This Court vide order dated 25-08-2023 granted ten days and no more as an last opportunity to opposite party no. 2 for filing counter affidavit. Today when the case is being taken up in revised list then neither counsel for the opposite party no.-2 is present nor any counter affidavit has been filed on his behalf. As such this court is proceedings finally in the interest of Justice. 2. Heard Shri Kaushal Kishore Tewari, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and perused the entire record. 3. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants Ravi Prakash @ Suraj and Rajesh Kumar @ Tori under Section 14-A (1) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST Act') for quashing the summoning order dated 05-09-2022, passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur in Complaint Case No. 47 of 2022 (Radhey Shyam v. Ravi Prakash @ Suraj & others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)Da and 3(1) Dha of SC/ST (PA) Act, P.S. Machrehata, District Sitapur as well as the entire proceedings of aforesaid complaint case. 4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the respondent No.2 has lodged the complaint case by making false and baseless allegations. The complaint case has been got lodged by the respondent No.2 by moving an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before Learned Special Judge S.C./ S.T. Act, Sitapur on 07-12-2021 against the appellants and two other persons. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity with the respondent no. 2. The appellants are law abiding citizens and appellant no. 1 is Assistant Manager in an multi national company and on the date of alleged occurrence appellant no. 1 was in Noida. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that respondent no. 2 was extending threats to the appellants for implicating them in false and frivolous cases in order to harass them. 6. 1 is Assistant Manager in an multi national company and on the date of alleged occurrence appellant no. 1 was in Noida. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that respondent no. 2 was extending threats to the appellants for implicating them in false and frivolous cases in order to harass them. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellants had placed reliance on report dated 03-01-2022 submitted by the Circle Officer of P.S. - Machrehata, District Sitapur in which it has been stated by Circle Officer that no such occurrence ever took place and impugned application has been given by the respondent no.2 by making false and bogus allegations against the appellants, the said report dated 03-01-2022 is annexed as Annexure No 2 in the affidavit. 7. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the appellants have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the appellants that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that the accused are not having any criminal history. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the opposite party no.2 moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 07-12-2021, which was treated as a complaint case by the learned court below in complete disregard of the facts. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the case lodged under Section 3(1) Da and 3(1) Dha of S.C./S.T. Act did not apply against the appellants because as per the complaint, the incident does not took place in the public view and public place. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710 and placed reliance upon para 13 and 18 of the aforesaid judgment, which are reproduced hereunder:- "13. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710 and placed reliance upon para 13 and 18 of the aforesaid judgment, which are reproduced hereunder:- "13. All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the Society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title over the land by either of the parties is not due to either the indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellant or his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that respondent No.2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then the parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the procedure established by law. Such action is not for the reason that respondent No.2 is member of Scheduled Caste. 18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out." 9. Thus, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no offence of S.C./ S.T. Act are applicable even though offence under the provisions of I.P.C. are also not applicable. There was no occasion for the appellants to harass the opposite party no.2 or to use physical force on him. Thus, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no offence of S.C./ S.T. Act are applicable even though offence under the provisions of I.P.C. are also not applicable. There was no occasion for the appellants to harass the opposite party no.2 or to use physical force on him. The summoning order passed by learned court below is not sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, it may be quashed. 10. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the aforesaid summoning order and submitted that prima facie offence is made out, however, he is unable to dispute the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellants. 11. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and as per the contents of the complaint as well as the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and also the report dated 03-01-2022 submitted by Circle Officer Machrehata, District Sitapur, the incident does not appears to happen, thus, Section 3(1) Da and 3(1) Dha of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not attracted against the appellants as the incident did not occur in public place and thus have no public view, even though the other Sections of I.P.C. are also not attracted against the appellant in view of the report dated 03-01-2022 submitted by Circle Officer of P.S. - Machrehata, District Sitapur, as such, considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma (Supra), this Court is of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. The summoning order dated 05-09-2022 passed by the court below is liable to be reversed and set aside as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is liable to be quashed. 12. The summoning order dated 05-09-2022 passed by the court below is liable to be reversed and set aside as well as entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is liable to be quashed. 12. Further the Apex Court has also laid down the guidelines where the criminal proceedings could be interfered and quashed in exercise of its power by the High Court in the following cases:-(i) R.P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 , (ii) State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Crl.)426, (iii) State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Crl.)192, (iv) Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another, (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cri.) 283 and (v) Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 . 13. From the aforesaid decisions the Apex Court has settled the legal position for quashing of the proceedings at the initial stage. The test to be applied by the court is to whether un-controverted allegation as made prima facie establishes the offence and the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceedings to be continued. 14. In S.W. Palankattkar & Others v. State of Bihar, 2002 (44) ACC 168, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that quashing of criminal proceedings is an exception than a rule. The inherent powers of the High Court itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised :- (i) to give effect an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court: (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The power of High Court is very wide but should be exercised very cautiously to do real and substantial justice for which the court alone exists. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and in view of the observation made above, the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 47 of 2022 (Radhey Shyam v. Ravi Prakash @ Suraj & others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)Da and 3(1) Dha of SC/ST (PA) Act, P.S. Machrehata, District Sitapur pending in the court of learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Sitapur as well as the impugned summoning order dated 05.09.2022 passed in the aforesaid case is hereby quashed so far as it relates to the instant appellants Ravi Prakash @ Suraj and Rajesh Kumar @ Tori. 16. 16. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad. 17. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.