Allahabad HC seeks explanation from trial judge over issuance of summons under non-existent SC/ST Act provision

The Allahabad High Court has sought an explanation from a trial judge in Aligarh after the judge was alleged to have cited a non-existent provision of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) while summoning an accused [Rajan Bajaj v State of Uttar Pradesh and Another]..A Bench of Justice Praveen Kumar Giri observed that such a casual exercise of judicial power has serious implications for personal liberty.“The present Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Aligarh as well as the then Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Aligarh, who passed the summoning order dated April 30, 2024, are directed to submit their explanation as to why the summoning order was passed in such a casual manner, violating the fundamental right of the applicant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” the Court said..The Court has ordered that the explanation be submitted by January 30, 2026, when the case will be heard next. .The Court was dealing with a plea filed by a man (applicant) who claimed that he was falsely implicated in an SC/ST Act case. He said that the criminal case was actually rooted in a property dispute that arose after he was allocated some land declared as industrial land by the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (UPSIDC). The applicant contended that the complainant had filed a case only to pressurize him (the applicant). The complainant had accused the applicant of committing the offences under Sections 323 (hurt) and 504 (intentional breach of peace) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under the SC/ST Act. He approached the Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, seeking the registration of an FIR against the accused–applicant. Acting on the Magistrate’s order, the police registered an FIR under provisions of the IPC and the SC/ST Act.After completing the investigation, the police filed a closure report, stating that no prima facie case was made out against the accused. The complainant, however, filed a protest petition against the closure report..Following this, the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Aligarh, treated the matter as a complaint case and recorded statements under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Thereafter, by order dated April 30, 2024, the Special Judge summoned the accused.The accused–applicant challenged this summons before the High Court, arguing that it was illegal since it invoked a non-existent provision of the SC/ST Act. In this regard, he highlighted that the summons order referred to a "Section 3(2)(5)" of the SC/ST Act, when no such provision existed in the law. It may be noted that the SC/ST Act contains a provision, Section 3(2)(v), but no provision titled Section 3(2)(5).The applicant also contended that the trial court ignored the closure report filed by the police and passed the order without proper compliance with the requirements laid down in Section 202, CrPC, to deal with cases where the accused resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court. .After considering these submissions, the High Court sought an explanation from the trial judge concerned as well as a response from the complainant in the case. The Court also granted the applicant interim relief from any coercive steps tied to the SC/ST case till the next hearing of the matter. "Till then, if any warrant has been issued against the applicant, the same shall be kept in abeyance," the Court said. .Advocate Raghav Arora appeared for the applicant. .[Read Order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.