# Sheelu @ Jitendra Mishra & Ors v. The State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties Cou

- **Citation:** (2014) 3 ILRA 1503
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-11-20
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No. 47107 of 2014
- **Bench:** Akhtar Husain Khan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sheelu-jitendra-mishra-ors-v-the-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-cou-43056
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Cr.P.C.-Section
482-Prayer
to
quash
proceeding-offence under section 323/504
IPC read with 3(i) X of SC/ST (Prevention of
atrocities) Act 1989-on ground u/s 14 of
SC/ST Act the special judge competent to
take cognizance and the Magistrate has no
authority-held-in view of Section 193
Cr.P.C. as well as law developed by Apex
Court-Session Judge ceased with every
jurisdiction
of
exercising
original
jurisdiction-except
the
Magistratecognizance taken by Magistrate -justifiedneed no interference-application rejected.
Held: Para-12 & 13

## Text

3 All]. Sheelu & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
1503
The applicant, through the present
application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has
invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court
with a prayer that his bail application in
complaint case No. 490 of 2014 under Section
406 IPC police station Dharamsinghwa
district Sant Kabir Nagar be ordered to be
considered expeditiously, if possible on the
same day by the court below.
In view of the order passed in
Application U/S 482 No. 21679 of 2014 dated
03.7.2014, no further direction is required to
be passed in the present application.
Accordingly, present application is disposed
of."
23.
It is thus evident that nothing has
been said in Ram Kesh Rao (supra) which
may constitute any binding precedent on this
Court. This order has been passed in the light
of this Court's order dated 03.07.2014 passed
in Munawwar (supra). I have carefully gone
through the aforesaid judgment wherein this
Court has taken the view that personal liberty
of the subject is of utmost importance and,
therefore, whenever a matter is brought to this
Court to show that there is any violation of
fundamental rights under Article 21 of the
Constitution, this Court will protect the person
from such violation being the guardian of
fundamental rights.
24.
The proposition in general is
unexceptional. It is the actual application of
proposition of law in individual case,
whether it applies or not. In order to apply
aforesaid dictum there has to be a factual
foundation laid down in a case demonstrating
that fundamental right of life and liberty
under Article 21 of the applicants are being
infringed by the police or anyone else. For
that purpose specific pleadings are needed. In
the present case there is no such pleading that
applicants have illegally been arrested or that
their fundamental rights under Article 21
have been violated due to their illegal arrest
and yet their bail application has not been
heard by the court below expeditiously or in
the manner as already directed by this Court
in various authorities, some of which have
already been referred hereinabove.
25. The applicant has yet to surrender.
He has yet to move an application before
concerned court. Therefore, to issue a
direction for something which is yet to see
light of the day, is nothing but requiring this
Court to pass an order in anticipation of
certain facts which are not pleaded or placed
before this Court by means of pleading in
application concerned. In other words the
applicant is seeking relief on imaginary basis.
Unless a case is made out for violation of
fundamental right under Article 21 of the
Constitution by specifically pleading all
relevant facts, in my view, no such direction
would be justified to issue as it amounts to
issuing futile direction by this Court and that
too on superfluous and imaginary basis. The
aforesaid decisions, therefore, as cited at the
bar in support of submission by learned
counsel for the applicant, do not help him in
any manner.
26. In the result, I do not find myself
satisfied to accede the request made in
this
application. The application is
accordingly dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.11.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, J.
Criminal Misc. Application No. 47107 of
2014
(u/s 482 CR.P.C)
Sheelu @ Jitendra Mishra & Ors.
Applicants
1504
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Versus
The State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties
Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Manu Khare
Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
A.G.A.
Cr.P.C.-Section
482-Prayer
to
quash
proceeding-offence under section 323/504
IPC read with 3(i) X of SC/ST (Prevention of
atrocities) Act 1989-on ground u/s 14 of
SC/ST Act the special judge competent to
take cognizance and the Magistrate has no
authority-held-in view of Section 193
Cr.P.C. as well as law developed by Apex
Court-Session Judge ceased with every
jurisdiction
of
exercising
original
jurisdiction-except
the
Magistratecognizance taken by Magistrate -justifiedneed no interference-application rejected.
Held: Para-12 & 13
12. In view of discussion made above it is
apparent that Special Court designated for
trial of offences under Section 14 of
S.C./S.T. Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 is a Court of Session and has no
jurisdiction to take cognizance as a Court of
original jurisdiction. Therefore Magistrate is
only competent to take cognizance for
offences punishable S.C./S.T. (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 and to commit cases
under said Act to the Court of Special Judge
in accordance with provisions of Cr.P.C.
13. In view of discussion made above it
is clear that Magistrate has committed
no illegality or irregularity in taking
cognizance on charge sheet submitted
by police.
Case Law discussed:
AIR 2004 Cr.L.J. S.C. 1890; 2004 (57) ALR 290;
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC); 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Akhtar Husain
Khan, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants and perused application moved
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2. By filing this application under
section 482 Cr.P.C. applicants have
prayed to quash proceedings initiated on
the basis of F.I.R. dated 3.3.2014 bearing
Case Crime No.15 of 2014, under sections
323, 504 I.P.C. & section 3(1) X of
S.C./S.T. Act, 1989, Police Station Chilla,
District Banda and charge sheet dated
27.4.2014 bearing No. 22 of 2014, under
sections 323, 504 I.P.C.& section 3(1) X
of S.C./S.T. Act, 1989, Police Station
Chilla, District Banda bearing Case
No.539/IX/2014 pending before learned
IInd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Banda.
3.
Learned counsel for applicants
contended that incident narrated in F.I.R. is
totally false and F.I.R. has been lodged with
malafide intention. Police has submitted
charge sheet without sufficient evidence on
false
allegation.
Learned
counsel
for
applicants further contended that in view of
Section 14 of S.C./S.T. Act (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 offence punishable
under said Act shall be tried by Special
Court. Therefore cognizance taken by
A.C.J.M. is without jurisdiction.
4. In view of above contention
learned counsel for applicants has prayed
for quashing of proceedings of aforesaid
criminal case.
5. I have considered the submission
made by learned counsel for applicants.
6. Accused applicants are named in
F.I.R. and police has submitted charge
sheet against accused applicants after
3 All]. Sheelu & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
1505
investigation whereupon Magistrate has
taken cognizance.
Section
14
of
S.C./S.T.
Act
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
provides that the State Government shall,
with the occurrence of the Chief Justice of
the High Court, by notification in the
Official Gazette, specify for each district
a Court of Session to be a Special Court
to try the offences under this Act.
7. Reading of Section 14 of said Act
shows that State Government shall designate
a court of Session with the concurrence of
the Chief Justice of the High Court as
Special Court to try offences under this Act.
Thus it is apparent that the Special Court
designated for trial of cases relating to this
Act shall be a court of Session.
8. Section 193 of Cr.P.C. is relevant
which is quoted below:
"Cognizance of offences by Courts of
Session - Except as otherwise expressly
provided by this Code or by any other law
for the time being in force, no Court of
Session shall take cognizance of any
offence as a Court of original jurisdiction
unless the case has been committed to it
by a Magistrate under this Code."
9. In view of above provisions
Section 193 of Cr.P.C. it is apparent that
no Court of Session Judge shall take
cognizance of any offence as a Court of
original jurisdiction unless the case has
been committed by Magistrate.
10. Either in Section 14 of S.C./S.T.
Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
or any where in the said Act. There is no
provision to show that a Special Court is
competent to take cognizance for offences
under the Act.
11. In the case Moly Vs. State of
Kerala A.I.R. 2004 Cr.L.J. S.C. 1890,
Honourable Apex Court has held that the
Special
Judge
appointed
under
the
Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 has
no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint
under Section 3(1) (X) of the Act to take
the cognizance directly and to issue
process without the case being committed
to it by competent magistrate.
12. In view of discussion made above
it is apparent that Special Court designated
for trial of offences under Section 14 of
S.C./S.T. Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 is a Court of Session and has no
jurisdiction to take cognizance as a Court of
original jurisdiction. Therefore Magistrate is
only competent to take cognizance for
offences punishable S.C./S.T. (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and to commit
cases under said Act to the Court of Special
Judge in accordance with provisions of
Cr.P.C.
13. In view of discussion made
above it is clear that Magistrate has
committed no illegality or irregularity in
taking
cognizance
on
charge
sheet
submitted by police.
14. In view of discussion made
above I am of the view that there is
neither any illegality nor irregularity
either in investigation made by police or
in cognizance taken by Magistrate.
15. In view of above, I am of the
view that no interference is required under
section 482 Cr.P.C.
16. At this stage, learned counsel for
applicants prayed that a direction should
be made for expeditious disposal of bail
1506
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
application in view of principles laid
down by Seven Judges Bench of this
Court in the case of Amrawati and
another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004
(57) ALR 290 as well as by Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap
Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009
(3) ADJ 322 (SC).
17. A direction for expeditious
disposal of bail application in view of
principles laid down by this Court as well
as
by
Apex
Court
in
aforesaid
pronouncements appears just.
18.
In view of above, present
application is disposed off with above
direction and it is directed that if the
applicants appear before Magistrate/Session
court within one month from today and
move bail application, Magistrate/Session
court shall dispose of their bail application
expeditiously in view of principles laid down
by this Court in the case of Amrawati and
another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004
(57) ALR 290 as well as by Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap
Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3)
ADJ 322 (SC).
19. With above direction application
is finally disposed off.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.11.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50116 of 2013
State of U.P.
.Petitioner
Versus
Shri Raj Kumar & Anr.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
S.C., Sri C.K. Rai
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri
Himanshu
Upadhyay,
Sri
M.P.S.
Chauhan, S.C.
Industrial Dispute Act 1945-Section 6-Hread with U.P. Industrial Rule 1957-Rule
33-claim of regular salary-once claim of
regularization rejected no question of
payment of salary on regular basis-so for
award given by Labour Court is concernRespondent
1
already reinstated
in
service and as per order of Writ Court
50%
amount
deposited-shall
be
returned to workman.
Held: Para-16
The said writ petition was disposed of
vide
order
dated
26.04.2011
with
direction to the Executive Engineer to
decide the claim of the workman for
regularization and finally the Executive
Engineer vide order dated 25.05.2011,
has rejected the claim of the workman
for regularization on the ground that
demand of regularization could not be
accepted as the same is in violation of
Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India. Once the claim for regularization
of workman on the post of tube well
operator
has
been
denied
by
the
petitioner and the same has attained
finality, therefore, the benefit of regular
salary on the said post cannot be
accepted, and the same would be in
violation of the principle laid down in the
decision of the Apex Court in Case of
Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma
Devi ( Supra). Therefore, at this stage,
this Court has only to look into the
matter as to whether the award dated
20.08.2007 had been complied by the
department and further the present
impugned order passed under Section 6H (1) can be sustained or not? It is
admitted situation that the award has
attained finality up to Hon'ble Apex
Court and it has also been brought on
record that in pursuance to the award
dated 20.08.2007 the workman has
joined the department. Therefore, while