# Ram Prasad v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 1085
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-11-20
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 8217 of 2023
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-prasad-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50828
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 156(3), 200,
202 & 203 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 420, 323, 504 & 506 - Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(Da)
& 3(1)(Dha) - Appellant challenged dismissal
of complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. for
offences under IPC and SC/ST Act, alleging
bribery for job placement. Court held: (1) At
dismissal stage under Section 203 Cr.P.C.,
Magistrate must assess prima facie case from
complaint, witness St.ments under Sections 200
and 202, and investigation report; no detailed
evaluation required (Ghanshyam Singh Vs St. of
U.P., 2007 (3) JIC 599 (All)). (2) "Sufficient
ground for proceeding" means prima facie
satisfaction that complaint is not false or
vexatious; Magistrate's discretion is judicial, not
substitutable by High Court (Nagawwa Vs
Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, 1976 Law Suit
(SC) 189). (3) Appellant's claim of paying Rs.
50,000/- for job lacked supporting evidence
(e.g.,
bank
St.ments);
age
(42
years)
disqualified him from contract job (Chandra Deo
Singh Vs Prakash Chandra Bose, AIR 1968 SC
117). (4) Witnesses' St.ments were vague; no
proof of public humiliation for SC/ST Act
applicability; simple injuries insufficient for
offences (Nirmaljit Singh Hoon Vs St. of West
Bengal, (1973) 3 SCC 753). (5) Dismissal order
reflected prima facie evaluation; no error
warranting interference (Dilip Kumar Vs Brajraj
Srivastava, Criminal Appeal No. 561 of 2012).
Appeal dismissed. (Paras 7-25)

Criminal Appeal Dismissed.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1 All. Ram Prasad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1085

12. It is directed that in the event of
arrest of the appellant, namely, Salman
Tanveer in Case Crime No.433 of 2022,
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504,
506, 332, 353, 342, 364 I.P.C. and Section
3(1)(Da),
3(1)(Dha)
and
3(2)(V)
of
S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Thakurganj,
District Lucknow, he shall be released
forthwith by the Station House Officer of
the police station concerned, on his
furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-
with the following condition:-

(i) That the accused-appellant
shall
make
himself
available
for
interrogation by police authorities as and
when required and will cooperate with the
investigation;

(ii) That the accused-appellant
shall not, directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to
the court or to any police officer; and

(iii) That the accused-appellant
shall not leave India without the previous
permission of the Court.

13. It is made clear that the
observation made herein above are only
confined to the disposal of the instant
criminal
appeal
i.e. anticipatory bail
application only and has no effect on the
ultimate merit of the case.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 1085
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SADHNA RANI
(THAKUR), J.

Criminal Appeal No. 8217 of 2023
Ram Prasad ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Appellant:
Pt. S.P. Sharma, Deepika Sharma

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Virendra Singh Patel

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 156(3), 200,
202 & 203 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 420, 323, 504 & 506 - Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(Da)
& 3(1)(Dha) - Appellant challenged dismissal
of complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. for
offences under IPC and SC/ST Act, alleging
bribery for job placement. Court held: (1) At
dismissal stage under Section 203 Cr.P.C.,
Magistrate must assess prima facie case from
complaint, witness St.ments under Sections 200
and 202, and investigation report; no detailed
evaluation required (Ghanshyam Singh Vs St. of
U.P., 2007 (3) JIC 599 (All)). (2) "Sufficient
ground for proceeding" means prima facie
satisfaction that complaint is not false or
vexatious; Magistrate's discretion is judicial, not
substitutable by High Court (Nagawwa Vs
Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, 1976 Law Suit
(SC) 189). (3) Appellant's claim of paying Rs.
50,000/- for job lacked supporting evidence
(e.g.,
bank
St.ments);
age
(42
years)
disqualified him from contract job (Chandra Deo
Singh Vs Prakash Chandra Bose, AIR 1968 SC
117). (4) Witnesses' St.ments were vague; no
proof of public humiliation for SC/ST Act
applicability; simple injuries insufficient for
offences (Nirmaljit Singh Hoon Vs St. of West
Bengal, (1973) 3 SCC 753). (5) Dismissal order
reflected prima facie evaluation; no error
warranting interference (Dilip Kumar Vs Brajraj
Srivastava, Criminal Appeal No. 561 of 2012).
Appeal dismissed. (Paras 7-25)

Criminal Appeal Dismissed.

List of Cases cited:

1. Ghanshyam Singh Vs St. of U.P., 2007 (3) JIC
599 (All) (Para 7)
1086 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2.
Nagawwa
Vs
Veeranna
Shivalingappa
Konjalgi, 1976 Law Suit (SC) 189 (Para 8)

3. Chandra Deo Singh Vs Prakash Chandra Bose,
AIR 1968 SC 117 (Para 9)

4. Nirmaljit Singh Hoon Vs St. of West Bengal,
(1973) 3 SCC 753 (Para 10)

5. Dilip Kumar Vs Brajraj Srivastava, Criminal
Appeal No. 561 of 2012 (Para 11)

6. SW Palanitkar Vs St. of Bihar, 2001 Law Suit
(SC) 1408 (Para 21)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani
(Thakur), J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellant, Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned
A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for
the opposite party no.2 and perused the
record.

2. This appeal has been filed against
the judgment and order dated 31.07.2023
passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Act,
Jhansi
summoning
the
appellant
in
Criminal Case No. 55 of 2023 CNR No.
UPJS01-002845-2023 (Ram Prasad Vs
Alok Shndilya and others), under Sections
420, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)
Da, Dha of SC/ST Act, Police Station Sipri
Bazar, District Jhansi.

3. By the impugned order the
complaint of complainant was dismissed
under Section 203 Cr. P.C.

4. As per fact of the case, an
application under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C.
dated 08.05.2023 was moved by the
appellant before the trial court with the
allegation that he is the person belonging to
SC/ST community. As the parties were
known to each other. The opposite party
no.1 lured him to arrange a job for him on
contract basis and in this regard, the
opposite party no.1 demanded Rs. 50,000/-
from
the
appellant.
On
15.07.2022,
01.02.2023 and 03.02.2023 the appellant
withdrew Rs. 20,000/-. Rs. 20,000/- and
Rs. 10,000/- respectively from the Account
No. 3373315131 of his wife Poonam and
handed over the same to opposite party
no.1-Alok Shndilya in front of his wife
namely Poonam. He was promised by the
opposite party no.1 to arrange a job for him
within one month. But neither the job was
arranged for the appellant nor his amount
was returned back. On 15.04.2023 at 12.00
hours in the Noon, the opposite party no.1
Alok Shndilya along with two other
unknown persons met him, all of them
hurled abuses and caste based words, they
also thrashed him with kick,fist and the
belt. He was further given threat of life if
he demands his money back. Sudhir
Purohit and Charan Singh witnessed the
incident and saved the appellant. On the
same day, he got himself medically
examined at the District Hospital Male,
Jhansi and went to the police station but his
report was not written. On 17.04.2023 he
sent a registered letter to the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Jhansi along with
copy of the pass book and injury report, but
no action was taken.

5. The application under Section 156
(3) Cr. P.C. of the appellant is said to have
been registered as a complaint. The trial
court after perusing the statements under
Section 200 and 202 Cr. P.C. of the
appellant/applicant
and
the
witnesses
respectively and other evidence on record
dismissed the complaint of the appellant
under Section 203 Cr. P.C.

6. It is argued by the learned counsel
for the appellant that the version of the
complaint is supported by the statements of
1 All. Ram Prasad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1087
complainant and the witnesses recorded
under Sections 200 and 202 Cr. PC.
respectively. The medical examination
report of the appellant from the District
Hospital, of the same day, is appended with
the paper book, thus the version of the
complaint fully discloses a cognizable
offence against opposite party no2. hence
prayer is made accordingly.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant
has
placed
reliance
on
judgement
Ghanshyam Singh Versus State of U.P.
and others 2007(3) JIC 599 (All) and
NAGAWWA
Versus
Veeranna
Shivalingappa Konjalgi 1976 Law Suit
(SC) 189 and argued that Court cannot
evaluate the evidence at this stage of
Section 203 Cr. P.C., as it was finally
deciding the case, non consideration of the
documents produced by the accused at this
stage is proper procedure.

8. Attention of this court is again drawn
towards the judgement is SW Palanitkar
Versus State Bihar 2001 Law Suit (SC)
1408 wherein the phrase "sufficient ground
for proceeding" used in Section 203 Cr. P.C.
has been explained that at the stage of issue
of process against the accused the words
sufficient ground for proceeding means only
a prima facie satisfaction that, complaint is
either false or vexatious or intended only to
harass the accused. The court need not be
satisfied that, whether trial court will result
into conviction.

9. Judgment in Chandra Deo Singh
Versus Prakash Chandra Bose alias
Chabi Bosd other 1963 0 Supreme (SC) 11
is also placed before the Court wherein the
Apex Court held that for determining the
question whether any process is to be
issued or not, the Magistrate has to be
satisfied whether there is "sufficient ground
for proceedings" and not whether there is
sufficient grounds for conviction.

10. Again judgment in Nirmaljit
Singh Hoon Versus The State of West
Bengal and another (1973)3 Supreme
Court Cases 753 is placed before the court
wherein the Apex court held that for issue
of process sufficient cause for proceeding
must exist.

11. In case of Dilip Kumr Versus
Brajraj Srivastava and another decided on
26.07.2023 in Criminal Appeal No. 561 of
2012 the Apex Court held that before
dismissing the complaint under Section 203
Cr. P.C., the Magistrate has to consider the
statement of the complainant and his
witnesses.

12. On the basis of the above
judgements, the learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that for issuing process
the evidence of witnesses and complainant
must not be evaluated as the case was being
decided finally. On the basis of the
statement of the complainant and statements
of the witnesses and medical report on
record, learned counsel for the appellant
further prayed for his application under
Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. to be allowed.

13. Learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2, however, opposed the prayer
and submitted that medical report filed by
the appellant is not readable. It is also
argued that the trial court has specifically
recorded its finding in para no. 9 of the
order. This order does not need any
interference,
hence
prayer
is
made
accordingly.

14. To decide the matter it is apposite
to mention Section 203 of Cr. P.C. which
reads as under:-
1088 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"If,
after
considering
the
statements on oath (if any) of the
complainant and of the witnesses and the
result of the enquiry of investigation (if
any) under Section 202, the Magistrate is of
opinion that there is no sufficient ground
for proceeding, he shall dismiss the
complaint, and in every such case he shall
briefly record his reasons for so doing.

15. Thus as per this section, sufficient
ground for proceeding further must be there.
It is clearly mentioned in the order that after
considering the statement on oath of the
complainant and other witnesses and the
result of the enquiry or investigation under
Section 203 Cr. P.C., if the Magistrate is of
the opinion that there is no sufficient ground
for proceeding he shall dismiss the complaint,
and in every such case he shall record the
brief reason for doing so.

16. If we go through the impugned
order, the trial court has clearly opined
therein that appellant himself is a person of
42 years of age who has given illegal
gratification for securing job for him. No
receipt of payment to the opposite party
no.2 was placed. The trial court also found
that how the witnesses who belonged to
other place arrived at the spot is also not
made clear by the complainant. If three
persons
intentionally
thrashed
the
appellant, in the opinion of the trial court,
the first informant would have certainly
suffered grievance injuries, while injuries
sustained by the appellant are simple in
nature. Hence the trial court did not find
any sufficient ground to summon the
accused person, hence the complaint of the
complainant was dismissed under Section
203 Cr. P.C.

17. If we further go through the
judgement in the case of Ghanshyam
Singh (supra), the Apex Court found
therein that the Magistrate has to satisfy
himself that there is sufficient evidence to
proceed against the accused. In the present
case trial court did not find any sufficient
evidence to proceed against the accused,
hence the appellant cannot take benefit of
the aforesaid judgements.

18. In the case of NAGAWWA
Versus Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi
(supra) it has been clearly opined by the
Apex Court that Magistrate has been given
undoubted discretion in the matter and this
discretion has to be judicially exercised by
him. Apex Court further opined that once
the Magistrate has exercised its discretion,
it is not for the High Court or the Apex
Court, to substitute its own discretion for
that of Magistrate or to examine the case on
merits with a view to find out whether or
not the allegations in the complaint, if
proved, would ultimately end in conviction
of the accused.

19. In the present case the Magistrate
concerned by using its discretion did not
find sufficient ground to proceed with the
complaint.

20. In the case of Chandra Deo
Singh (supra), Apex Court has given the
same finding that there must be sufficient
ground for proceeding and not sufficient
ground for conviction.

21. Thus in both these judgements
SW Palanitkar and Chandra Deo Singh,
the Apex Court has pressed upon sufficient
ground for proceeding i.e. prima facie
satisfaction that complaint is neither false
or vexatious nor intended only to harass the
accused.

22. In case of Nirmaljit Singh Hoon
(supra) the Apex Court held that there must
1 All. Smt. Mamta Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1089
be sufficient cause for proceeding and the
trial court vide order dated 31.07.2023 did
not
find
any
sufficient
ground
for
proceeding further.

23. So far as judgement in the case of
Dilip Kumar (supra) is concerned, the
facts of that case are different from the
facts of the present case, in that case the
Magistrate did not consider the statement
of the complainant and his witnesses, as
the witnesses were not examined in that
case but the case in hand the position is
different. The statements of the witnesses
have been recorded and considered by the
trial court, hence the appellant cannot
take benefit of this judgement also.

24. From the perusal of the
complaint, it is clear that appellant is said
to have paid Rs. 50,000/- as illegal
gratification to the opposite party no.2 for
securing a job for him. On one hand he
has done a job which is against the law,
at the same time, he has not placed before
the Court any statement of account or
evidence that this amount was ever
withdrawn by the appellant from the bank
and was paid by him to the opposite party
no.2. A person of 42 years of age does
not fulfill the criteria for getting a job on
contract basis, as services on contract
basis are given in the Government
Department to a person upto, a certain
age. A person being 42 years of age,
cannot be given a government job on
contract basis also. Thus the basis of
allegation that the amount was paid to the
opposite party no.2 as illegal gratification
for arranging a job for him, is neither
proved nor it can be considered lawful.

25. In the opinion of the Court neither
the facts mentioned in the complaint can be
said to be the sufficient cause of action for
proceeding further nor this Court has any
sufficient ground to interfere with the
discretion exercised by the Magistrate to
substitute its own discretion. The appeal is
liable to be dismissed.

26. The appeal is thus dismissed.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 1089
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 561 of 1996

Smt. Mamta Shukla ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri L.P. Singh, Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Sri
Ramanuj Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate, Sri A. Kumar Srivastava,
Sri A.K. Singh

(A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 397/401 -
Revision , Section 372 - No appeal to lie
unless otherwise provided, Section 378 -
Appeal in case of acquittal , Right to
appeal is a substantive right and it is not a
mere matter of procedure - If a judgment
of acquittal had been passed on or after
31.12.2009 only then an appeal can be
preferred otherwise only a revision can be
preferred in case of a judgment and order
of acquittal. (Para - 10,11,15)
Offence
committed
before
31.12.2009
-
acquittal order passed on 07.03.1996 - Accused
persons acquitted - aggrieved - informant
preferred
criminal
revision
under
Section
397/401 CrPC on 15.04.1996 - revisionist moved
an application on 04.12.2019 - to convert
revision into criminal appeal under Section 372