Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6543 of 2018 Appellant :- Jitendra Kumar Dixit Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Kumar Dixit Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Priyanka Devi
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Om Prakash, learned A.G.A., for the State and learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. Perused the record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (1) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act") has been filed challenging the summoning order dated 13.8.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court)/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Mahoba, in Complaint Case No.
25 of 2018 (Sukh Lal Vs. Jitendra Kumar Dixit), under Sections 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C., and Section 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (s), 3 (2) (5A) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Kabrai, District-Mahoba whereby appellant has been summoned in the aforesaid sections.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has preferred several against the respondent No. 2 (Sukh Lal) in which inquiry has been conducted by the Government officials and in inquiry, respondent No. 2 (Sukh Lal) was found guilty. Being annoyed by the complaint filed by the appellant, respondent No. 2 (Sukh Lal) has filed this complaint maliciously with false allegation to harass the appellant.
Learned A.G.A., and learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 contended that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court.
Defence of the appellant shall not be considered by the trial court at the stage of cognizance. Whether allegation made in the complaint is false or not, shall be decided after recording of evidence during trial.
From perusal of the record and statements of complainant and his witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the appellant.
Accordingly, I find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court and as such, this appeal stands dismissed.
However, none of the aforesaid offences against appellant is punishable with imprisonment for more than seven years. All the materials relevant for disposal of bail application is available on record before trial court/court concerned.
Accordingly, in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and in view of the order passed by this Court in Smt. Sakeena and others Vs. State, and another reported in 2018 (2) ACR 2190, it is directed that in case the appellant files his bail application and also prays for interim bail, his prayer for interim bail shall be considered and decided on the same day, and the regular bail shall be decided thereafter by affording an opportunity of hearing to the victim or his dependent as per the mandate of Section 15A (5) S.C./S.T. Act.
For a period of 60 days from today or till the appellant surrenders and applies for bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against him.
Order Date :- 30.1.2019 Jaswant