# Hari Prakash Rawat v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 878
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-11-29
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 994 of 2021
- **Bench:** Vikas Kunvar Srivastav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/hari-prakash-rawat-v-state-of-u-p-anr-46668
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Scheduled Caste & Scheduled
Tribes Act,1989- Sections 14 (A)- Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 156 (3) -
Learned Judge did not record as to any
disclosure of commission of cognizable offence
-in Application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C.-instead
went
deep
into
evidence-
and
rejected
application-required
to
see
prima
facie
disclosure
of
cognizable
offence-impugned
order rejected-Appeal allowed. (E-9)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

878 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

The Registry is directed to send back
the record of the trial court immediately along
with a copy of the present order.
----------
(2021)12ILR A878
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAV, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 994 of 2021

Hari Prakash Rawat ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Saharsh, Adarsh Bhushan

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Scheduled Caste & Scheduled
Tribes Act,1989- Sections 14 (A)- Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 156 (3) -
Learned Judge did not record as to any
disclosure of commission of cognizable offence
-in Application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C.-instead
went
deep
into
evidence-
and
rejected
application-required
to
see
prima
facie
disclosure
of
cognizable
offence-impugned
order rejected-Appeal allowed. (E-9)
List of Cases cited:

1. Ramesh Kumari Vs State (NCT of Delhi) reported in
(2006) 2 SCC 677

2. Lalita Kumar Vs Govt. of U.P. & ors. reported in
2014 (2) SCC 1

3. St. of Assam Vs Abdul Noor & ors. reported in
(1970) 3 SCC 10
(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav, J.)

1. The case is called out.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri
Saharsh, Advocate and learned A.G.A. for the
State Sri Anurag Singh Chauhan, Advocate are
present in the Court.

3. The e-court record reveals that office
has reported vide it's report dated 24.11.2021,
the notice issued pursuant to the order of the
Court dated 14.07.2021 has been served
personally upon the opposite party no.2 i.e. Raj
Kumar Verma. As such service is held
sufficient.

4. Despite service of notice, none
appeared, either the opposite party no.2, the
prospective accused in person or the learned
counsel on his behalf to represent him, though,
learned A.G.A. was directed vide order dated
26.11.2021
to
secure
the
presence
or
representation of the said prospective accused,
opposite party no.2.

5. Learned A.G.A. submits that the facts
averred in the application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. against the opposite party no.2 disclose a
private dispute between him and the present
appellant, the same is dismissed, as such, there is
no information or instruction with him in this
regard to argue.

6. Sri Ram Kripal Singh, Sub-Inspector,
Police Station Alambagh, District Lucknow,
pursuant to the direction given to learned A.G.A.
to attend the Court with prospective accused, has
come but it is informed that the said opposite
party no.2 i.e. prospective accused has denied to
attend the Court today.

7. The matter is heard on merit on the basis
of materials available on the record of appeal.

8. The instant appeal in hand is moved
under Section 14(A) of The Schedule Castes and
Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
11 All. Hari Prakash Rawat Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
879
1989
against
the impugned
order
dated
24.03.2021 passed by the Learned Special
Judge, S.C./S.T. Act/Additional District &
Sessions Judge, in Case No.111 of 2021, (Hari
Prakash Rawat Vs. Raj Kumar Verma) under
Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., Police Station
Gosaiganj, District Lucknow, whereby the
learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. had rejected the
application of the present appellant under
Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.

9. To appreciate the matter involved in the
appeal, a brief account of facts complained in
the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
moved by the appellant is being given here
under.

The
appellant/applicant
aforesaid
belongs to schedule caste and the opposite party
no.2 belongs to other caste. The private
respondent no.2, Raj Kumar Verma met the
appellant in Mohanlal Ganj and represented
himself ''Mandal Adhyaksha' of a political party
namely ''Bhartiya Janta Party'. The Raj Kumar
Verma and other workers of the Bhartiya Janta
Party induced the appellant to be a member of
the party in the year 2016, pursuant to which, the
appellant begin to work for the Bhartiya Janta
Party as it's active member.

The Raj Kumar Verma offered to the
appellant to contest elections in the election of
Member of Legislative Assembly, Uttar Pradesh
for the Constituency No.176, Mohanlal Ganj,
which is a reserved Constituency and promised
to make it possible in getting candidature of the
Bhartiya Janta Party in the election. On the
aforesaid representation, offer and inducement,
the appellant began to work for the purpose of
electioneering in the Constituency on behalf of
the Bhartiya Janta Party. The aforesaid Raj
Kumar Verma assured the appellant to arrange a
meeting with Bhartiya Janta Party's State
President, ''Sri Swatantra Deo Singh' with whom
the said respondent represented himself to have
homely relationship and stated him to be in
decisive position in the process of allotment of
ticket for candidature of the party in elections.

The appellant/applicant visited Sri
Swatantra Deo Singh with private respondent
no.2. After the meeting, the private respondent
called the appellant/applicant and represented
that he has settled the things with the party's
high ups for the candidature of appellant in the
elections and the appellant/applicant has to
deposit Rs.15,00,000/- in the party fund.
Believing on the representation and promise, the
appellant/applicant deposited a cheque bearing
no.129729
drawn
on
Axis
Bank
worth
Rs.5,00,000/- and deliver in cash Rs.10,00,000/-
on 01.12.2016 in the account of private
respondent, Raj Kumar Verma on his advice.
The payment of the cheque was cleared in the
account of respondent no.2.

In the election for Uttar Pradesh
Legislative Assembly of year 2017, the
appellant/applicant when not given ticket as
candidate of Bhartiya Janta Party, he asked the
private respondent no.2, Raj Kumar Verma, the
receipt of the said amount of Rs.15,00,000/- paid
to him but neither the receipt of payment in
party fund nor the repayment of the said amount
was
done
by
the
respondent
no.2.
He
continuously deferred the delivery of receipt or
repayment.

Further, after a considerable lapse of
time, when the receipt was not delivered, a
complaint was made in the party forum, when
the opposite party no.2 knew about the
complaint, he threatened the appellant/applicant
of dare consequences, abused him in the name of
caste in filthy languages. He also threatened that
now the Government is of Bhartiya Janta Party
and if the appellant/applicant continues to
persuade his complaint, he will falsely implicate
in criminal cases to secure his imprisonment, so
that receipt of the money would not be claimed
by the appellant/applicant for the whole life.

10. The complaint of the said incident was
made to Police Station Gosaiganj, District
880 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Lucknow on 25.11.2020. The police did not take
any action. Thereafter, on 05.12.2020, the matter
was complained to I.G.R.S. On their instruction,
the Police Station Alambagh, District Lucknow
started the preliminary inquiry and afterward
transferred the inquiry to the Police Station
Gosaiganj, District Lucknow. The Police of
Police Station Gosaiganj, District Lucknow
recorded the statement on the pretext of doing
action in the said inquiry but due to political
pressure they did not proceed further. The
inaction on the part of the police was reported on
19.01.2021 through a complaint to the Police
Commissioner, Lucknow and when no action
was taken by him also, the application under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was moved before the
Court of Special Judge (S.C./S.T.) Act.

11. The order dated 24.03.2021 whereby
the application of the applicant/appellant under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was rejected, when
examined for the purpose of finding out the
reasons why the said application is rejected, it is
found in observation of the Court that the entire
facts seems to be confusing and unbelievable for
the reason when the appellant/applicant and
private respondent no.2, Raj Kumar Verma met
together to Sri Swatantra Deo Singh then why
all the things were conversed between them
again separately.

12. Learned court below, the Special Judge
has also on the aforesaid ''confusion' recorded
that seemingly there might have been mutual
transaction
of
money
between
the
appellant/applicant and the private respondent
no.2 which has been twisted by framing story
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. He further
declined to act upon the application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for the reason that there
is no mention of date in the complaint as to the
appellant/applicant was given threat of life and
abused with the name of caste in filthy language
by the private respondent no.2.

13. It appears that in passing the order
under appeal, the Special Judge wanted to go
deep into the allegations searching for the
evidences, while he is required under the law to
gather the facts emerging from the contents of
the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. so
as to infer the disclosure of information as to
commission of a cognizable offence, which the
Officer In-charge of the Police Station had to
register under Section 154(1) Cr.P.C. for
instituting the criminal case against the accused.
This is to be done by looking into facts prima
facie constituting any cognizable offence.

14. Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. is quoted
hereunder:-

"154. Information in cognizable cases.

(1) Every information relating to the
commission of a cognizable offence, if given
orally to an officer in charge of a police station,
shall be reduced to writing by him or under his
direction, and be read Over to the informant;
and every such information, whether given in
writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall
be signed by the person giving it, and the
substance thereof shall be entered in a book to
be kept by such officer in such form as the State
Government may prescribe in this behalf.

(2) A copy of the information as
recorded under sub- section (1) shall be given
forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.

(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal
on the part of an officer in charge of a police
station to record the information referred to in
subsection (1) may send the substance of such
information, in writing and by post, to the
Superintendent of Police concerned who, if
satisfied that such information discloses the
commission of a cognizable offence, shall either
investigate the case himself or direct an
investigation to be made by any police officer
subordinate to him, in the manner provided by
this Code, and such officer shall have all the
11 All. Hari Prakash Rawat Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
881
powers of an officer in charge of the police
station in relation to that offence."

15. The case of Ramesh Kumari Vs. State
(NCT of Delhi) reported in (2006) 2 SCC 677 is
cited to impress on the duty of the Officer
Incharge of the Police Station under Section
154(1) of the Cr.P.C.:-

"33. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that
if any information disclosing a cognizable offence
is laid before an officer in charge of a police
station satisfying the requirements of Section
154(1) of the Code, the said police officer has no
other option except to enter the substance thereof
in the prescribed form, that is to say, to register a
case on the basis of such information."

16. As such, for cognizable offence a duty
has been caused upon the police to mandatorily
register a first information report shall given it's
ordinary meaning of being "mandatory" in
character as held in Lalita Kumar Vs.
Government of U.P. and others reported in 2014
(2) SCC 1.

17. The appellant belongs to Schedule Caste
community. This was well known to the private
respondent no.2, Raj Kumar Verma. The
Schedule Castes and The Schedule Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is enacted to
prevent the commission of offence of atrocities
against the members of the Schedule Castes and
the Schedule Tribes, to provide for (Special
Courts and the Exclusive Special Courts) for the
trial of such offences and for the relief and
rehabilitation of the victims of such offences and
for matters connected therewith or incidental
thereto.

18. The word "atrocity" in the Act is
defined in Section 2 of The Schedule Castes and
Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989, the definition clause (1)(a) provides means
an offence punishable under Section 3.

19. The appellant/applicant has specifically
alleged in his application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. that when the police did not act even on
the instructions issued to them by the
government pursuant to the complaint dated
05.12.2020 then he moved a complaint again to
the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow
on 19.01.2021. It is specifically alleged further
that when no action was done on his complaint
and information as to the commission of
offence, the daring accused, respondent no.2
used to abuse the appellant/applicant with the
name of his caste on telephones and threatened
to cause injury to his life and property because
of which the appellant/applicant apprehended to
his life.

20. The paras from the application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved before the Special
Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lucknow are reproduced
hereunder for reference:-

"12- ;g fd izkFkhZ vius lkFk ?kfVr ?kVuk
o tkylkth dh lwpuk Fkkuk xkslkbZxat] y[kuÅ esa
fnukad 25-11-2020 dks fn;k ftl ij Fkkus dh iqfyl
}kjk fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dh x;hA

13- ;g fd tc Fkkuk xkslkbZxat] y[kuÅ es
izkFkhZ dh dksbZ lquokbZ ugha gq;h rc izkFkhZ foo'k gksdj
fnukad 5-12-2020 dks vkbZ0th0vkj0,l0 ds ek/;e ls
f'kdk;r dh x;h ftlds mijkUr vkyeckx iqfyl Fkkus
ls izkjfEHkd tkap djds ekeyk xkslkbZxat iqfyl Fkkus
dks vUrfjr dj nh x;hA

14- ;g fd Fkkuk xkslkbZxat dh iqfyl }kjk
ek= fn[kkos ds fy;s izkFkhZ ds c;ku fy;s x;s pwafd
foi{kh dh jktuhfrd igqap gksus ds dkj.k mlds fo:)
dksbZ dkuwuh dk;Zokgh iqfyl }kjk ugha dh x;hA

15- ;g fd blds ckn Hkh tc izkFkhZ dh dgh
ij dksbZ lquokbZ ugh gq;h rc izkFkhZ {kqCn gksdj fnukad
19-1-2021 dks ,d izkFkZuki= f'kdk;rh iqfyl vk;qDr
egksn; y[kuÅ dks fn;k] fdUrq ml ij Hkh vHkh rd
dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha gq;hA fn;s x;s izkFkZuki=ksa dh
Nk;kizfr;ka rFkk layXu izkFkZuk i= gSA

16- ;g fd foi{kh ds fo:) dksbZ dk;Zokgh
u gksrs gq;s ns[k foi{kh ds gkSlys vkSj cqyUn gks x;s gS
og vk;s fnu izkFkhZ dks tkfr lwpd xkfy;ka Qksu }kjk
882 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
nsrk gS rFkk tkueky dh /kedh cjkcj ns jgk gS izkFkhZ
dks viuh tku dk l[r [krjk foi{kh ls mRiUUk gks
x;k gSA"

21. The allegations no doubt coming under
the offence as described in Section 3 of The
Schedule
Castes
and
Schedule
Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 then also
the police had not taken any action against the
mandatory requirement of the Rules [The
Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes Act
(Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1955]. Rule 5
is quoted hereunder:-

"5. Information to Police Officer incharge of a Police Station.--

(1) Every information relating to the
commission of an offence under the Act, if given
orally to an officer incharge of a police station
shall be reduced to writing by him or under his
direction, and be read over to the informant, and
every such information, whether given in writing
or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be
signed by the persons giving it, and the
substance thereof shall be entered in a book to
be maintained by that police station.

(2) A copy of the information as so
recorded under sub-rule (1) above shall be given
forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.

(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal
on the part of an officer in-charge of a police
station to record the information referred to insub-rule (1) may send the substance of such
information, in writing and by post, to the
Superintendent of Police concerned who after
investigation either by himself or by a police
officer
not
below
the
rank
of
Deputy
Superintendent of Police, shall make an order in
writing to the officer in-charge of the concerned
police station to enter the substance of that
information to be entered in the book to be
maintained by that police station."

22. Learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act
when found the occasion to apply his mind over
the contents of the application under Section 156
(3) Cr.P.C. did not record in impugned order under
appeal that he did not find disclosure of the
commission of any cognizable offence punishable
under the Indian Penal Code and in The Schedule
Castes and The Schedule Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989. Even, he has not discussed
about the requirement of taking action by a
competent police officer on information as to the
offence committed by a person not belonging to
schedule caste with another person knowingly
belongs to schedule caste and schedule tribe.

23. The appellant having moved an
application on the denial from registering the first
information report by the concerned Police Officer
of the Police Station Gosainganj, District Lucknow
to move the same before the Commissioner of
Police, Lucknow on 19.01.2021.

24. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is being quoted
hereunder for easy reference in the course of
discussion in the matter:-

"156. Police officer' s power to
investigate cognizable case.

(1) Any officer in charge of a police
station may, without the order of a Magistrate,
investigate any cognizable case which a Court
having jurisdiction over the local area within the
limits of such station would have power to inquire
into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.

(2) No proceeding of a police officer in
any such case shall at any stage be called in
question on the ground that the case was one
which such officer was not empowered under this
section to investigate.

(3) Any Magistrate empowered under
section 190 may order such an investigation as
above- mentioned."

25. The Magistrate can also issue warrant
for production before taking cognizance, if after
the cognizance has been taken and the
Magistrate wants any investigation, it will be
11 All. Hari Prakash Rawat Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
883
under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. as it is held in
the State of Assam Vs. Abdul Noor and Ors.
reported in (1970) 3 SCC 10.

26. The Magistrate can under Section 190
Cr.P.C. before taking cognizance ask for
investigation by the police under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C.
Section
190
Cr.P.C.
is
quoted
hereunder:-

"190. Cognizance of offences by
Magistrates.

(1) Subject to the provisions of this
Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and
any Magistrate of the second class specially
empowered in this behalf under sub- section
(2), may take cognizance of any offence-

(a) upon receiving a complaint of
facts which constitute such offence;

(b) upon a police report of such
facts;

(c) upon information received from
any person other than a police officer, or upon
his own knowledge, that such offence has been
committed.

(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may
empower any Magistrate of the second class to
take cognizance under sub- section (1) of such
offences as are within his competence to inquire
into or try."

27. In the present case, the Special Judge
obviously has not exercised power vested in him
rather he rejected the application obviously
disbelieving the material allegations made in the
aforesaid application disclosing an offence
alleged to have been committed by the
prospective accused by fraud upon the applicant
in the name of his high approaches in a political
party, inducing him to believe on the facts he
represented
and
thereby
gaining
undue
advantage of huge amount of Rs.15,00,000/- on
the promise of securing his candidature on the
party symbol in the forth coming Uttar Pradesh
Assembly Elections from the reserved seat.
28. Section 415, 420 and 506 of the I.P.C. are
being quoted hereunder:-

"415.
Cheating.--Whoever,
by
deceiving
any
person,
fraudulently
or
dishonestly induces the person so deceived to
deliver any property to any person, or to consent
that any person shall retain any property, or
intentionally induces the person so deceived to
do or omit to do anything which he would not do
or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act
or omission causes or is likely to cause damage
or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation
or property, is said to "cheat". Explanation.--A
dishonest concealment of facts is a deception
within the meaning of this section. Illustrations

(a) A, by falsely pretending to be in the
Civil Service, intentionally deceives Z, and thus
dishonestly induces Z to let him have on credit
goods for which he does not mean to pay. A
cheats.

(b) A, by putting a counterfeit mark on
an article, intentionally deceives Z into a belief
that this article was made by a certain
celebrated manufacturer, and thus dishonestly
induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A
cheats.

(c) A, by exhibiting to Z a false sample
of an article, intentionally deceives Z into
believing that the article corresponds with the
sample, and thereby, dishonestly induces Z to
buy and pay for the article. A cheats.

(d) A, by tendering in payment for an
article a bill on a house with which A keeps no
money, and by which A expects that the bill will
be dishonored, intentionally deceives Z, and
thereby dishonestly induces Z to deliver the
article, intending not to pay for it. A cheats.

(e) A, by pledging as diamonds article
which he knows are not diamonds, intentionally
deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to
lend money. A cheats.

(f) A intentionally deceives Z into a
belief that A means to repay any money that Z
may lend to him and thereby dishonestly induces
884 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Z to lend him money. A not intending to repay it.
A cheats.

(g) A intentionally deceives Z into a
belief that A means to deliver to Z a certain
quantity of indigo plant which he does not intend
to deliver, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to
advance money upon the faith of such delivery.
A cheats; but if A, at the time of obtaining the
money, intends to deliver the indigo plant, and
afterwards breaks his contract and does not
deliver it, he does not cheat, but is liable only to
a civil action for breach of contract.

(h) A intentionally deceives Z into a
belief that A has performed A's part of a
contract made with Z, which he has not
performed, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to
pay money. A cheats.

(i) A sells and conveys an estate to B.
A, knowing that in consequence of such sale he
has no right to the property, sells or mortgages
the same to Z, without disclosing the fact of the
previous sale and conveyance to B, and receives
the purchase or mortgage money from Z. A
cheats.

420.
Cheating
and
dishonestly
inducing delivery of property.--Whoever cheats
and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or
to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part
of a valuable security, or anything which is
signed or sealed, and which is capable of being
converted into a valuable security, shall be
punished
with
imprisonment
of
either
description for a term which may extend to
seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

506.
Punishment
for
criminal
intimidation.--Whoever commits, the offence of
criminal intimidation shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to two years, or with fine, or
with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous
hurt, etc.--And if the threat be to cause death or
grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any
property by fire, or to cause an offence
punishable with death or 1[imprisonment for
life], or with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to
a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, or with fine, or with
both."

29. Section 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(v-a)
of The Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 are being
quoted hereunder:-

"Section 3(1)(s):- abuses any member
of a Schedule Caste or a Schedule Tribe by caste
name in any place within public view;

Section 3(2)(v):- commits any offence
under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten
years or more against a person or property
[knowing that such person is a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Schedule Tribe or such
property belongs to such member], shall be
punishable with imprisonment for life and with
fine;

Section
3(2)(v-a):-
commits
any
offence specified in the Schedule, against a
person or property, knowing that such person is
a member of a Schedules Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe or such property belongs to such member
shall be punishable with such punishment as
specified under the Indian penal Code (45 of
1860) for such offences and shall also be liable
to fine."

30. Bare perusal of the contents in the
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. moved
before the court of Special Judge undoubtedly
discloses the information as to the offence under
the aforesaid provisions of law. Learned Special
Judge, S.C./S.T. Act was to find out the
disclosure of the offence, if any, from the
information contained in the application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to direct the concerned
police officer to register the first information
report and investigate the matter, but he opted to
11 All. Hari Prakash Rawat Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
885
go deep into the evidences of behind such
information for which he was not required under
law.

31. On bare perusal of the aforesaid
Section in Indian Penal Code, it is sufficiently
clear from the allegations made in the
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C that
there is a complaint against the acts of private
respondent no.2, namely, Ram Kumar Verma
falling under the offence which is cognizable
and non-bailable under the aforesaid Sections of
the Indian Penal Code and the special enactment
of The Schedule Castes and The Schedule Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The
information as to which was also given earlier to
the Station House Officer, Police Station
Gosaiganj, District Lucknow, who has not acted
even when the recourse was taken by sending
the complaint to the Commissioner of Police,
Lucknow on 19.01.2021 and the Police Station
was instructed to inquire into and lodge first
information report but same was denied by
inaction on the part of Police Station. This
compelled the appellant to move the application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Special
Judge (S.C./S.T.) Act, Lucknow.

32. The complaint lodged in the
Consolidated Complaint Redressal System of
the Uttar Pradesh by the appellant "Hari Prakash
Rawat" and the complaint in written sent
through post on 19.01.2021 are annexed with the
affidavit in appeal. The copy of the application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was moved
before the learned court below is also on record.

33. Learned Court below was not required
to go deep into the evidence but to see whether
the
allegations
made
in
the
application/complaint, even if they are taken at
their face value and accepted in their entirety
prima facie disclose a cognizable offence and
make out a case against the accused. He failed to
do so and instead of directing the police for
investigation, rejected the application on flimsy
grounds.

34. In the present case where the police
despite repeated efforts made by the appellant
did not lodge the first information report as it is
disclosed from the materials available on record
and the pleadings in the memo of appeal, no first
information report was lodged under Section
154 Cr.P.C. though there was sufficient material
to gather information as to the commission of
offence, the Special Judge (S.C./S.T.) Act,
Lucknow ought either to issue direction for the
registration of the first information report or to
treat the application as complaint.

35. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case
of Lalita Kumar Vs. Government of U.P. and
others (Supra), has held in para 120 as under:-

"120) In view of the aforesaid
discussion, we hold:

i) Registration of FIR is mandatory
under Section 154 of the Code, if the
information
discloses
commission
of
a
cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is
permissible in such a situation.

ii) If the information received does not
disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the
necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry
may be conducted only to ascertain whether
cognizable offence is disclosed or not.

iii) If the inquiry discloses the
commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR
must be registered. In cases where preliminary
inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of
the entry of such closure must be supplied to the
first informant forthwith and not later than one
week. It must disclose reasons in brief for
closing the complaint and not proceeding
further.

iv) The police officer cannot avoid his
duty of registering offence if cognizable offence
is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring
officers who do not register the FIR if
886 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
information received by him discloses a
cognizable offence.

v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is
not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the
information received but only to ascertain
whether the information reveals any cognizable
offence.

vi) As to what type and in which cases
preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will
depend on the facts and circumstances of each
case. The category of cases in which preliminary
inquiry may be made are as under:

a)
Matrimonial
disputes/
family
disputes

b) Commercial offences

c) Medical negligence cases

d) Corruption cases

e) Cases where there is abnormal
delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution,
for example, over 3 months delay in reporting
the matter without satisfactorily explaining the
reasons for delay.

The aforesaid are only illustrations
and not exhaustive of all conditions which may
warrant preliminary inquiry.

vii) While ensuring and protecting the
rights of the accused and the complainant, a
preliminary inquiry should be made time bound
and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The
fact of such delay and the causes of it must be
reflected in the General Diary entry.

viii) Since the General Diary/Station
Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all
information received in a police station, we
direct that all information relating to cognizable
offences, whether resulting in registration of
FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be
mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the
said Diary and the decision to conduct a
preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as
mentioned above."

36. The learned trial judge has erred in
passing the order impugned in the appeal as
neither he has held that there is no material
allegation which if taken together, disclose
prima facie a cognizable offence. Though the
complainant himself is a material witness in the
case and the documentary evidence placed by
him before the Court below were also sufficient
to disclose prima facie an offence believably
have been committed by the private respondent
no.2, Raj Kumar Verma. This also ought to have
kept into mind by the court below that allegedly
a huge amount of Rs.15,00,000/- was grabbed
by cheating and thereby dishonestly inducing the
appellant/applicant to deliver the huge sum of
money i.e. Rs.15,00,000/- to him, which the
private respondent no.2 got in his account and
thus undue gain was earned by him on his
inducement on promise to secure in lieu thereof,
the candidature of the appellant/applicant in
State Assembly Elections from the reserved seat
of Mohanlal Ganj.

37.

The
offences
disclosed
from
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are not
only cognizable but also non-bailable. The
attitude of the Special Court specially made for
redressing the atrocities or wrongs committed by
a person belonging to other caste with a person
belonging to schedule caste or schedule tribe
obviously seems to have swayed upon the
magnanimity of the political party and it's
leaders, rather to see the conduct of private
respondent no.2, namely, Raj Kumar Verma, an
office bearer as ''Mandal Adhyaksh' of the
Mohanlal Ganj, Lucknow. The order of the
Court below therefore deserves to be set aside.

38. Accordingly, the present Criminal
Appeal filed under Section 14(A) of The
Schedule
Castes
and
Schedule
Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the
impugned order dated 24.03.2021 passed by the
Learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act/Additional
District & Sessions Judge, in Case No.111 of
2021, (Hari Prakash Rawat Vs. Raj Kumar
Verma) under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., Police
Station Gosaiganj, District Lucknow succeeds
11 All. Saleem Vs. State of U.P.
887
and is allowed. The accused person, as he had
no right to be heard at pre cognizance stage, was
given opportunity of being herad, the efforts
were taken to secure his presence at the time of
hearing, as the court below has dismissed the
application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against
him, creating a right of hearing at this stage, but
he did not avail the opportunity.

39. The order dated 24.03.2021 passed by
the
Learned
Special
Judge,
S.C./S.T.
Act/Additional District & Sessions Judge, in
Case No.111 of 2021, (Hari Prakash Rawat Vs.
Raj Kumar Verma) under Section 156(3) of
Cr.P.C., Police Station Gosaiganj, District
Lucknow is set aside.

40. The learned Court below i.e. Learned
Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act/Additional District
& Sessions Judge, Lucknow is directed to
exercise it's discretionary power and decide
afresh the application under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. moved by the appellant and to pass an
appropriate order in accordance with law,
keeping in view the observations made by this
Court as well as the direction given by Hon'ble
the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumar Vs.
Government of U.P. and others(Supra) within a
period of one month from the date, certified
copy of the order is produced before it.

41. Accordingly, the present criminal
appeal stands disposed of.
----------

(2021)12ILR A887
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1002 of 2003
Saleem ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
S. Rehman, Anita Singh, Gauri Suwan Pandey,
Khalid Khan, Qazi S.R. Rahman, Rajiv Mishra,
Raza Zaheer, Rizwanul Haq

Counsel for the Respondent:
Govt. Advocate

Accused
being
driver
of
deceased-pressurizing
deceased to make him permanent in his job-upon
deceased showing inability-locked the deceased in the
car-and set him ablaze-dying declaration-95% burn
injuries-eye
witnesses-son
and
wife-both
the
statement tallies-cannot be discarded merely on
ground of related witnesses-prosecution proved
beyond doubt.

Appeal dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Munni Devi & ors. Vs St.of U.P.; 2020 (5) ALJ 653

2. Bhagaloo Lodh & anr. Vs St. of U.P., 2011 (13) SCC
206

3. Gangabhavani Vs Rayapati Venkat Reddy & ors.,
2013 (15) SCC 298

4. Laltu Ghosh Vs St. of W.B., AIR 2019 SC 1058

5. Md. Rojali Ali & ors. Vs. St. of Assam, AIR 2019 SC
1128

6. Ganeshlal Vs St. of Mah., (1992) 3 SCC 106

7. Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam & anr. Vs St. of A.P. ,
(1993) 2 SCC 684
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.)

1. The present Criminal Appeal has been
preferred by the appellant against the judgment
and order dated 04.06.2003 passed in Session
Trial No.3 of 2002, arising out of Case Crime
No.241 of 2001, under Sections 302, 435, 427