Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3988 of 2018 Appellant :- Chhatra And Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Aseem Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
This appeal has been filed under section 14-A(1) of S.C./S.T. Act against the impugned summoning order as well as non bailable warrant dated 28.5.2018 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Amroha in C.N.R. No.UPJB0/0035682017, Complaint Case No.32 of 2017 "Smt. Jagwati Vs. Chhatra and another", under sections 323, 504, 506, 354 IPC and 3 (1)(d)(dh) of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S.
Didauli, District Amroha.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the complaint case; that learned trial court has acted wrongly and illegally in passing the impugned order of cognizance and summoning the appellants; that the complaint has been filed with absolutely false and incorrect allegations; that it is wrong to say that the respondent no.2 was cutting grass in the fields of Ashok on 4.6.2017 at about 11:00 a.m., appellants arrived there abused her with caste name and on her protest caught her with hairs and committed marpeet with kicks and fists, in which incident the clothes of respondent no.2 were torn; that the entire prosecution story is false and incorrect; that the real fact is that the respondent no.2 was habitual of taking fodder out of the fields of appellants and caused damage to their crops, on which she was asked to not to cause further loss to the appellants and feeling aggrieved, she has filed a false complaint case after three months of the alleged incident; that no incident did take place on 4.6.2017 and the appellants neither abused her nor committed marpeet with her; that the impugned order of cognizance is wrong and incorrect and is liable to be set aside.
Per contra, learned AGA submitted that it is wrong to say that respondent no.2 caused any damage to the crops of appellants or taken any fodder from their fields, rather she was taking grass out of the fields of Ashok in the month of June when the appellants committed incident in question; that the appeal has been filed with false and baseless allegation to delay the trial.
Upon hearing parties counsel and perusal of record, I find that upon filing of complaint the Court is required to follow the procedure laid down in Chapter XV of Code of Criminal Procedure and after taking the statements of complainant and witnesses under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. if finds that there is no prima facie evidence of the offence, shall reject the complaint under the provisions of section 203 Cr.P.C. and if finds sufficient evidence of offence, shall take cognizance of the matter and issue process against the accused under section 204 Cr.P.C. Perusal of impugned order shows that learned Special Judge after recording the statements of complainant and witnesses under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. has found that there is prima facie sufficient evidence of the offence in the incident in question and has accordingly taken cognizance under sections 323, 504, 506 and 354 IPC and 3(1) (d)(dh) of S.C./S.T. Act.
In view of discussions made above, I find that learned counsel for the appellants has failed to show any illegality, irregularity or incorrectness in the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of merits and has no force and is liable to be dismissed.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 26.7.2018 Tamang