Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3966 of 2018 Appellant :- Rajvati Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Avanish Pratap Singh,Udai Bhan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Vakalatnama filed by Sri Rahul Kumar Sharma and Sri Vikas Srivastava, Advocates on behalf of respondent no.2 today in the Court, is taken on record.
This appeal has been filed under section 14-A(1) of S.C./S.T. Act against the impugned summoning order dated 6.6.2018 passed in Case No.898/12 of 2016 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Hathras, Suresh Chand Vs. Rajwati, under sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC and 3(1)(dha) S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Hathras Kotwali, District Hathras.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent no.2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is bad on facts and law; that the opposite party no.2 is a co-worker with the appellant, who has got service in Electricity Department under the Dying in Harness Rules; that in due course of time since the appellant was promoted at the post of T.G. Second, the respondent no.2 felt ill of it filed and a petition before Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow challenging her promotion, which is pending; that in above petition false allegations have been made with regard to forged educational certificates of appellant; that apart from it the respondent no.2 also moved an application under section 156(3) Cr.PC. against the Principal of institution from where the appellant passed out and subsequently the matter was compromised between the respondent no.2 and the Principal Rajesh whereupon the respondent no.2 not pressed his application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was rejected vide order dated 30.3.2018 (Annexure No.6), with the understanding that Sri Rajesh will lodge F.I.R. against the appellant and subsequently the above Principal Rajesh also lodged a false F.I.R. against appellant at Case Crime No.170 of 2018, under sections 420, 467, 468 IPC (Annexure No.7); that the real fact is that respondent no.2 is a co- worker with the appellant in the same Electricity Department keeps a bad eye on the appellant and on 15.11.2016 at about 2:00 p.m. he started committing obscene acts with her and also asked her to accompany him to Lucknow for one or two days upon which he will settle all the matters otherwise he will not permit her to continue in service and threatened her of life as well as implication in false case, regarding which she moved an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 28.11.2016, which was treated as complaint and after recording statements under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. it was dismissed under the provisions of section 203 Cr.P.C.; that against the order of rejection of her complaint, the appellant has filed Criminal Revision No.146 of 2017 before the Sessions Judge, Hathras, which is pending for disposal; that respondent no.2 moved a false application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the appellant on 5.12.2016, which was also treated as complaint and in which learned Special Judge has passed the impugned order without due application of mind; that the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by respondent no.2 on 5.12.2016 as a matter of counter blast to the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. of appellant dated 28.11.2016; that the impugned order of cognizance is liable to be set aside.
Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for respondent no.2 supported the impugned order of cognizance and contended that the defence version mentioned by the appellant are false and may not be considered by Court at the stage of cognizance; that the allegations made by the appellant against respondent no.2 are absolutely false; that the appellant has obtained service under the Dying In Harness Rules by producing forged academic certificates and also managed to get promotion on above forged papers and since respondent no.2 has challenged her promotional order before the competent court C.A.T., Lucknow, she has a grudge against him and due to this reason she moved an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the respondent no.2 with false allegations which has been rightly rejected by the Court; that the appellant neither kept a bad eye on the appellant nor committed any obscene acts nor asked her to accompany him to Lucknow for one or two days, rather feeling aggrieved with the challenge of her promotional order by the respondent no.2 she committed marpeet with respondent no.2 with slaps as well as slippers and abused him with caste name; that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity; that the appeal has been filed with false and baseless allegations to delay the disposal of 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 IPC and 3(1)(dh) S.C./S.T. Act.
In view of discussions made above, I find that learned counsel for the appellant 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