The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday observed that a special court for trying cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), can treat an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) as a complaint. [Naresh Kumar Valmiki & Ors. v State of UP & Ors.]
A bench of Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Samit Gopal concurred with the view taken by the single-judge who referred the matter to the larger bench upon disagreeing with the view taken by another judge in the case of Soni Devi v. State of UP.
“The view taken in the case of Soni Devi vs. State of UP that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. cannot be treated as a complaint case is incorrect. The court concerned while exercising its judicial discretion can treat the said application as a complaint case also…In view of our aforesaid discussions, a Special Judge or court so established can treat an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint and proceed further in accordance with law,” the Court held.
The question arose in a matter that was placed before the division bench on the reference made by the single-judge disagreeing with the observation in Soni Devi that an application under Section 156(3) CrPC cannot be treated as a complaint case.
Along with the main petition, 83 other petitions and appeals were tagged in which applications filed under Section 156 (3) CrPC were treated as complaints and the respective accused persons were summoned to face trial.
The accused persons approached the High Court with the present pleas challenging the validity and legality of the orders passed against them.
Counsel appearing in the main petition argued that as per the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) lodging of FIR is mandatory if a complaint has been made on an act which is an offence.
He argued that since the SC/ST Act is a Special Act, the same overrides any other Act and thereby, the Special Court designated under the Act cannot take cognizance of an offence by treating an application under section 156(3) CrPC as a complaint.
On the contrary, the counsel for State, argued that a public servant is under a duty to take cognizance on a complaint or register FIR under the SC/ST Act and other relevant provisions as the case may be. Thus, filing of a complaint and/or treating an application under Section 156 (3) CrPC as a complaint is not barred.
As per, Section 21(3) of Indian Penal Code a Judge is a public servant, the counsel contended. The counsel further argued that, as per second proviso of Section 14 of the SC/ST Act power is given to the Special Court or Exclusive Special Court so established or specified to directly take cognizance of offences.
The Court concurred with this argument and relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya v Anand Athabhai Chaudhari, the Court observed that a special court or courts specified can take cognizance directly.
“The second proviso to Section 14 of the Act makes it clear that the Special Court so established or specified shall have powers to directly take cognizance of offence under this Act,”the Court held.
Accordingly, the court directed that the present petitions and appeals be listed before the appropriate Bench on October 20, 2022.
The petitioners was represented by advocates Arvind Kumar Singh, Mohd Zaid, Prateek J Nagar, Geetam Singh, Shree Prakash Giri and Anil Kumar.
The State was represented by advoocates Syed Ali Murtaza, Neeraj Kumar Srivastava, Shobhit Yadav, Ankit Srivastava and Kartikey Pandey.
Source Link
