Ram Autar Kashyap @ Ram Autar and 9 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3991 of 2024 Appellant :- Ram Autar Kashyap @ Ram Autar And 9 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Prashant Singh,Alok Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶2In view of the order, which is proposed to be passed today, notice to respondent No.2 is hereby dispensed with.

¶3Under challenge in this appeal is the summoning order dated 02.05.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./ S.T. Act, Lucknow in Case No.1096 of 2024 titled State of U.P. vs. Ram Autar Kashyap and others, arising out of Case Crime No.99 of 2023, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 325 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(da)(dha) and 3(2)(va) S.C./ S.T. Act, Police Station Nigohan, District Lucknow as well as charge sheet dated

30.07.2023 and the entire proceedings of aforesaid case.

¶4Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed without there being any evidence whatsoever against them. He has further submitted that there is no evidence whatsoever in support of the charge sheet neither there is any material to frame the charge against the accused nor the proceeding can fruitfully be continued against them. His further submission is that the entire prosecution story as narrated in the FIR is improbable and unbelievable. Therefore, the impugned criminal proceeding is liable to be set aside.

¶5Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State controverts the submissions of learned counsel for appellants on the ground that this is not a stage where minute and meticulous exercise with regard to the appreciation of evidence may be done and truthfulness of the allegations could only be tested in a criminal trial and, therefore, the appeal is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

¶6From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this initial stage, it cannot be said that prima facie no offence is made out against the appellants. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings under Section 14A(1) of SC/ST Act.

¶7Through a catena of decisions given by Hon'ble Apex Court this legal aspect has been expatiated upon at length and the law that has evolved over a period of several decades is too well settled. The cases of (1) Chandra Deo Singh vs. Prokash Chandra Bose reported in AIR 1963 SC 1430 ,

(2) Vadilal Panchal vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker reported in AIR 1960 SC 1113 and

(3) Smt. Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi reported in 1976 3 SCC 736 may be usefully referred to in this regard.

¶8The Apex Court decisions given in the case of R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq, another (Para-10) reported in 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 and Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2017 SC 4843 and in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 SCC(Cr.) 426 have also recognized certain categories by way of illustration which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet. Some of them are akin to the illustrative examples given in the above referred case of Smt. Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi reported in 1976 3 SCC 736. The cases where the allegations made against the accused or the evidence collected by the Investigating OfÏcer do not constitute any offence or where the allegations are absurd or extremely improbable impossible to believe or where prosecution is legally barred or where criminal proceeding is malicious and malafide instituted with ulterior motive of grudge and vengeance alone may be the fit cases for the High Court in which the criminal proceedings may be quashed.

¶9In view of the aforesaid case law, this Court has adverted to the entire record of the case.

¶10The submissions made by the appellants' learned counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. Therefore, this Court does not find any justification to set aside the proceedings against the appellants as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.

¶11Accordingly, the prayer for setting aside the impugned summoning order dated 02.05.2024 as well as the impugned charge sheet and the entire proceeding is refused as this Court does not see any illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the proceedings under challenge.

¶12Even otherwise, the appellants shall have an opportunity at the appropriate stage to move an application for discharge before appropriate Court taking therein all the pleas factual and legal which may be available to them, in accordance with law. In case, such an application is moved before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court shall dispose of the same with utmost expedition by a speaking and reasoned order strictly, in accordance with law having regard to the entire facts and evidence available on record.

¶13However, it is provided that if the appellants apply for grant of bail before the learned trial court concerned, the learned trial court concerned shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antill vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others reported in MANU/SC/1024/2021 and Satender Kumar Antill vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825.

¶14With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal appeal is finally disposed of. (Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.) Order Date :- 19.12.2024 cks/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench