Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9893 of 2021 Applicant :- Toofani Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Singh,Sarvagya Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ramji Singh Patel
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
1. Sri Sarvagya Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Sri Ramji Singh Patel, learned counsel for respondent no. 2.
2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed being aggrieved of order dated 18.2.2021 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Varanasi rejecting complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., police station - Cholapur, District - Varanasi (Toofani Vs. Sanjeev Pathak and others) in Misc. Case No. 26 of 2020 rejecting the application under section 203 Cr.PC. on the ground that learned counsel below has overlooked medical injuries report of the complainant wherein it is mentioned that she sustained four injuries namely (1) Abraded contusion 3.0 cm x 0.5 cm on Lt side neck 4 cm above from Lt clavicle and lower to middle, red (2) Multile ABraded 4 cm x 1 cm Rt. side neck 5 cm above from Rt. clavicle (3) Contusion 4 cm x 1 cm Lt. side back of abdomen 7 cm above from Lt. iliac crest and 6 cm Lateral to.., red and (4) Contusion 3.5 cm x 3 cm infront of left scapula red.
3. It is submitted that on the basis of minor contradiction impugned order has been passed which is contrary to law.
4. Sri Patel in his turn supports the order and submits that firstly no offence will be made out under the provisions of SC/ST Act inasmuch as no offence was made in the vicinity of public view. Secondly, there are material contradictions in the evidence of witness examined on behalf of the complainant. On the one hand, complainant has mentioned that accident took place on 31.8.2020, whereas PW-2 - Om Prakash Singh in his statement quoted that accident took place on 8.8.2020. Similarly, PW-1 in his turn averred that as motorcycle which was being driven by the respondent had hit the goats of the complainant, therefore cause of action arose whereas complainant herself and PW-2 deposed that as accused were driving motorcycle on high speed on a chak road, complainant had stopped them from driving motorcycle on such a high speed, then altercation took place. Another aspect of contradiction, which is available on record is that, PW-2, has submitted that he is not an eye witness of the accident and had not seen the accused hitting goats of the complainant and taking this contradiction into consideration, impugned order has been passed under section 203 Cr.P.C.
5. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order after appreciation of material available on record so to call for exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court, therefore, application fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.8.2021 S.K.S.