‘No illegality in order’: Allahabad HC junks appeal seeking withdrawal of SC/ST Act case

The accused, Chhote Lal Kushwaha and three others, then filed a criminal appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST Act last July, challenging the order passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kushinagar.

The case, lodged in Uttar Pradesh’s Kushinagar, dates back to 2020.

As per the HC order, the complainant alleged she had paid Rs 80,000 to the accused for arranging a visa and employment in Qatar for her husband. On January 1, 2019, she said the visa, valid up to February 23, 2019, was handed over to her. The complainant alleged the visa was not usable and that, despite repeated demands, the amount paid was not returned.

The order noted that it was further alleged that on May 5, 2020, when the complainant went to the accused to ask for her money back, she was abused on caste lines and threatened by him and his family.

The case was registered at Seorahi police station on charges of cheating, criminal intimidation, provisions of the Disaster Management Act, and different sections of the SC/ST Act.

Following the probe, the investigating officer submitted a chargesheet against four men.

In January 2024, following a communication from the state government, the Public Prosecutor moved an application under Section 321 CrPC seeking withdrawal of prosecution on the ground that the case did not merit further continuation.

The order said the complainant then filed objections opposing the proposed withdrawal, contending that the prosecution had been instituted only after her application under Section 156(3) CrPC was allowed. She also said the allegations disclosed offences against a member of a Scheduled Caste, warranting a full trial.

The HC held that the trial court had observed that the case involved serious allegations of cheating, caste-based insults were prima-facie supported by material on record, and withdrawal was not in public interest. The trial court had further held that the public prosecutor’s application did not reflect independent application of mind, rendering it unsustainable.

As per the HC order, the counsel for the appellants contended that the contradictions in the complainant’s statements under Section 161 CrPC were overlooked; that the visa issued was valid; and that the complainant’s husband voluntarily chose not to travel. It was argued that since the Governor and the state government directed withdrawal, the trial court ought to have allowed the application.

The HC stated, “These authoritative pronouncements reinforce that the trial court’s approach in scrutinising prima facie evidence, considering the rights of the complainant, and noting the absence of independent reasoning by the Public Prosecutor, is fully in consonance with Supreme Court principles.”

It added, “This Court finds no illegality, perversity, or impropriety in the order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kushinagar. The rejection of the application under Section 321 CrPC warrants no interference by this court. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

The HC further said that “however, considering the fact that the sessions trial is pending since 2020 and is awaiting its logical conclusion, it is expected that the trial court shall conclude the trial proceedings, preferably within a period of six months, in accordance with law without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party. With the aforesaid observation, the instant criminal appeal stands disposed of.”