1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (1) of the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellants for quashing the summoning order dated 25.6.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (SC/ST Act) Gonda in Sessions Trial No. 476 of 2020 (State Vs. Madhav Raj Dubey and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 369 of 2019 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 & 435 IPC and Section 3 (1) (Da) (Dha) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Colonelganj, District Gonda as well impugned charge sheet dated 21.11.2019 submitted by the police in the aforesaid case crime number.
3. Learned counsel for appellants/applicant has submitted that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. Further submission is that FIR of this case was lodged on an application moved under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. after 45 days of the incident. There is no plausible explanation regarding delay in lodging of the FIR. Learned counsel for appellants/applicants has submitted that the injured was medically examined after five days of the incident and her injury report does not corroborate the prosecution story. The injuries are simple in nature. Learned counsel for appellants has next submitted that general role has been assigned to the applicants and during the course of the investigation, the complicity of co-accused Mohit Dubey has been found to be false, therefore, he was exonerated by the Investigating Officer.
4. On this ground, learned counsel for appellant has submitted that the whole investigation is tainted. Learned counsel for appellants has further submitted that charge sheet filed against the appellant is false, frivolous and vexatious in nature, so the charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer is liable to be quashed and cognizance and summoning order passed by the trial court is liable to quashed and the appeal is liable to be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the present appeal under Section 14-A (1) of the S.C./S.T. Act and submitted that statement of the witnesses supported the prosecution case. The court below found sufficient ground for proceedings and summoned the accused applicants for facing trail under the aforesaid sections. It is further submitted that the entire submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant is on the facts of the case, which cannot be adjudicated at the stage in the present appeal. Therefore, the truthfulness of allegations and statements of the witnesses can be adjudicated upon only after the evidence is produced in the trial court.
6. At the stage of taking cognizance, the trial court can simply form an opinion as to whether the case is fit for taking and committing the matter for trial or not. In the present case, learned trial court clearly express his opinion that he perused all the records and clearly indicated that the material placed before him are sufficient to proceed with the case.
7. In the present case, a detailed cognizance and summoning order is passed by the trial court with application of mind as the same reflects that the trial court has applied his mind to material available on record and materials are sufficient to proceed against the applicants. The cognizance order is not a proforma order, every aspect is touched by the learned trial court and appellants failed to adduce any evidence which caused prejudice to them so cognizance order is perfectly valid and there is no occasion to quash the same.
8. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the appellants. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 14-A (1) of the SC/ST Act. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge according to the provisions prescribed in Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and he is free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court.
9. The prayer for quashing the cognizance order as well as summoning order and charge sheet hereby refused.
10. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned Counsel for parties and keeping in view the facts and legal proposition discussed hereinabove, I do not find any good ground warranting interference in the matter. It is not a case of grave injustice.
11. However, it is provided that if the appellants appear and surrender before the court below within 21 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the appellants be considered and decided expeditiously in view of the settled law laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court. For a period of 21 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the appellants. However, in case, the appellants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
12. With the aforesaid directions, this appeal under Section 14-A (1) of the SC/ST Act is dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.8.2021 Virendra