1. Heard Sri Manoj Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Chandra Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Dev Raj Singh, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Sunita Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. This criminal appeal under Section 14(2) of S.C./S.T.(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is directed against the summoning order dated 20.02.2020 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Kannauj in Complaint Case No. 22 of 2018 (Ajay Kumar v. Hukum Singh) P.S. District Kannauj, whereby the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Kannauj has summoned the appellant Hukum Singh under Section 504 & 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)Da of S.C./S.T. Act to face trial.
3. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondent no. 2 Ajay Kumar moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act alleging therein that the appellant gave certain medicines and injections to the respondent no. 2 due to which the leg of the respondent no. 2 became senseless below the waist. On 22.02.2015, at about 10:00 hours, when the respondent no. 2 went to Dr. Hukum Singh and complained about the injection, enraged thereupon the appellant abused the respondent no. 2 and uttered caste indicative word 'Chamra'.
4. Learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act instead of registering a criminal case against the the appellant directed that application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. be registered as a complaint case. After recording the statement of complainant and witnesses, learned lower court passed the impugned summoning order on 20.02.2020.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, appellant has preferred this appeal before this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is without any basis because the respondent no. 2/complainant did not file any document relating to treatment by the appellant. There is simply oral statement of respondent no. 2/complainant and witness Nilesh Kumar. He further submitted that now a days applications under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. have become the tool of oppression and harassment by the opposite parties.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submitted that there is evidence against the appellant. The complainant/respondent no. 2 has supported the case against the appellant in his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and PW1 Nilesh Kumar has corroborated the statement of the complainant in his statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Further submitted that at the time of summoning, the only thing to be seen by the court is that whether there is sufficient ground to proceed further.
8. Summoning of an accused under a criminal case is a serious matter. Machinery of criminal law should not be set into motion as a matter of routine. The order passed summoning the accused must reflect the application of mind of the concerned judge.
In Pepsi Food Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:
?10. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. it is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.?
9. In Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI, AIR 2015 SC 923, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:"
?Indisputably, judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. The court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process test it would be an instrument in the hands of private complainant as vendetta to harass the persons needlessly?.. It is equally well settled that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the order takeing cognizance by the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto.?
10. From the aforesaid authorities of Hon'ble Apex Court, it is manifest that the settled law on the point is that summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and order taking cognizance by a Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his judicial mind and law applicable thereto.
11. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Kannauj has specifically stated in his order that complainant has not filed any documentary evidence regarding treatment by appellant. Simply there is a statement of complainant/respondent no. 2 Ajay Kumar under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statement of witness Nilesh Kumar under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Without any documentary evidence relating to treatment such as medical prescription, letter pad of the doctor i.e. appellant suggesting medicines and injection, receipt of medicines and injection, it is not legally permissible to summon the appellant for trial.
12. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned summoning order dated 20.02.2020 is without basis and manifestly erroneous. The impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be set-aside.
13. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.
14. The impugned order dated 20.02.2020 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Kannauj in Complaint Case No. 22 of 2018 (Ajay Kumar v. Hukum Singh) P.S. District Kannauj, summoning the appellant Hukum Singh under Section 504 & 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)Da of S.C./S.T. Act, is hereby set-aside.
Order Date :- 18.8.2021 VPS