Representative image
PRAYAGRAJ: Allahabad high court has sought an explanation from a trial judge posted in Aligarh for allegedly citing a non-existent provision of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, while summoning an accused.In the order dated April 30, 2024, the then special judge, SC/ST Act, Aligarh, invoked “Section 3(2)(5)” of the SC/ST Act – a provision that does not exist in the statute, the counsel for the petitioner in the HC contended.The order was challenged by the accused in the case, Rajiv Bajaj, in the HC, which on Jan 14 sought an explanation from the special judge and fixed Jan 30 as the next date of hearing.Justice Praveen Kumar Giri at the HC, who passed the order, also said if any warrant had been issued against the applicant, it shall be kept in abeyance till then. The HC expressed serious concern over the manner in which judicial power was exercised, observing that such casual and careless orders had grave consequences for an individual’s personal liberty.According to the applicant, he was falsely implicated in a case under SC/ST Act and the criminal proceedings were the outcome of a property dispute that arose after he was allotted a piece of land declared industrial by Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation. The complainant had accused the applicant of assault and offences under the SC/ST Act, following which the judicial magistrate, Aligarh, directed the registration of an FIR.Pursuant to the magistrate’s order, the police registered an FIR under relevant provisions of IPC and SC/ST Act and carried out an investigation, concluding that no prima facie case was made out against the accused. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the complainant filed a petition in the special court challenging the closure report.Thereafter, the special judge (SC/ST Act), Aligarh, treated the matter as a complaint case and proceeded to record the statements of the complainant and witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Subsequently, the special judge summoned the accused to face trial.
