Source : INDIA TODAY NEWS
The Allahabad High Court has quashed an order of a special court in Maharajganj that had directed the registration of an FIR against a sub-inspector, a constable and about 20 police personnel. The high court said the order had been passed in a “casual” manner and without following the statutory procedure under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
advertisement
Justice Santosh Rai said the way the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Maharajganj, handled the matter was a serious concern. “The manner in which the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Maharajganj, has dealt with the application under Section 173(4) of the BNSS is a matter of serious concern. The impugned order reflects a serious lack of appreciation and application of the statutory procedure under the BNSS and the binding principles laid down by the Supreme Court,” he said. The judge also said, “The impugned order reflects a fundamental lack of understanding of the basic principles of criminal law and procedure on the part of the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Maharajganj.”
The case arose from an application filed under Section 173(4) of the BNSS by Sheela, 29, wife of Pramod, and Anju, 26, wife of Rajesh, both from Basantpur village in Maharajganj district. They said they belonged to the Chamar caste, which falls under the Scheduled Caste category. According to the application, there was a dispute over land and money between their families and the family of Ramasare.
The application said a clash took place on the night of June 6, in which Rajesh and a man named Pintoo were injured. It said that later that night, police took away Pintoo, Molai, Suresh and Rahul. It further alleged that sub-inspector Rakesh Kumar Yadav, constable Amit Kumar and about 20 policemen, with no female police officers present, entered the house of the opposite party without a search warrant and outraged their modesty while making caste-based remarks.
The high court noted that the special court had passed the order against the police personnel without examining their comments or the other material on record. It was argued before the high court that the allegations of physical search, indecent behaviour and intimidation were vague, omnibus, uncorroborated and motivated. It was also argued that since the alleged incident took place inside a private residential premises, the essential requirement of “public view” under the SC/ST Act was not prima facie satisfied. The appellants further said the lower court had failed to comply with the mandatory procedural safeguards under Sections 175(3) and 175(4) of the BNSS.
In its October 9 judgment, after considering the record and the arguments made on behalf of the police personnel, the high court said the special judge had not exercised jurisdiction in line with the mandatory provisions of the law. “In view of the foregoing discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Maharajganj, while passing the impugned order, has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him in accordance with the mandatory statutory provisions contained in Sections 175(3) and 175(4) of the BNSS. The learned court neither undertook the requisite consideration as to whether an inquiry under Section 175(3) was necessary nor recorded “cogent reasons” for dispensing with such an inquiry.” The high court thus set aside the order, saying the statutory procedure had not been properly followed.
– Ends
SOURCE :- TIMES OF INDIA
