Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4691 of 2018 Appellant :- Satish Chandra Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Yashpal Yadav,Lalji Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
The appeal has been filed under section 14-A(1) of S.C./S.T. Act against the order dated 24.5.2018 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Auraiya in Criminal Misc. No.11 of 2018, S.S.T. No.38 of 2018 (Saroj Rani Vs. Satish Chandra Dubey and others), P.S. Sahayal, Auraiya.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that appellant has been falsely implicated; that the entire prosecution story is absolutely false and incorrect; that prior to the incident in question, respondent no.2 falsely implicated the appellant in Case Crime No.44 of 2016 with charge of offence under section 376 IPC etc. amongst others; that in above case, final report was submitted but on protest petition, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence and against the order dated 2.4.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-Ist/Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act Auraiya in Criminal Revision No.9270 of 2011, in Criminal Revision No.1367 of 2018 filed by the appellant, this Court stayed the order dated 2.4.2018 till next date vide it's order dated 7.5.2018 at Annexure No.5; that on 21.1.2018, the respondent no.2 along with her husband and two daughters, armed with lathi, danda, kulhari (Axe) etc. entered in the house of co-accused Ram Shankar and assaulted him and his wife Uma Devi and also pelted stones, resulting in injuries to them regarding which co- accused Ram Shankar lodged F.I.R. at P.S. Sahayal at Case Crime No.27 of 2018 on the same day i.e. 21.1.2018 under sections 452, 336, 323, 504 and 506 IPC; that as a matter of counter blast, the respondent no.2 moved an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (Annexure No.1), which was treated as complaint and after recording the statements of complainant and witnesses at Annexure No.3, learned Special Judge passed the impugned order of cognizance under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)(da) (dha) S.C./S.T. Act and issued process against the appellant and others under sections 204 (2) and (3) of Cr.P.C.; that co- accused belong to scheduled caste family and the appellant does not belong to their family, rather is Brahmin by caste; that the appellant did not enter the house of respondent no.2 on 21.1.2018 along with co-accused persons or otherwise and did not commit the incident in question; that the impugned order is wrong, illegal and incorrect and is liable to be set aside.
Per contra, learned AGA supported the impugned order and contends that the appellant is accused of offences under section 376 IPC etc. in Case Crime No.44 of 2016 and if any order passed by Special Judge, Auraiya in Criminal Revision No.9270 of 2011 has been subsequently stayed in Criminal Revision No.1367 of 2018 by this Court vide order dated 7.5.2018, it does not make the incident in question to be false or unbelievable; that the case under section 376 IPC against appellant is of 2016 and order at Annexure No.5 staying order passed in Criminal Revision No.9270 of 2011 appears to be in some other case and irrelevant for facts of this case as well as Case Crime No.44 of 2016; that the appellant and co-accused persons are powerful and influential type of persons, they pressurized the respondent no.2 for compromise in Case Crime No.44 of 2016, under section 376 IPC and when the respondent no.2 and her family members did not agree, they committed marpeet with them, torn clothes of 17 years old minor daughter of respondent no.2 and caused injuries to them and before they could proceed to lodge a F.I.R., Ram Shankar lodged a false F.I.R. in advance for making a false defence in this case and due to their influence, the F.I.R. of respondent no.2 could not be lodged and she have to move an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which too was treated as complaint; that the impugned order has been passed after recording the statements of complainant and witnesses under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.; that the appeal has been filed just 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 and issued process.
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 is liable to be dismissed.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 27.8.2018 Tamang