BHAMARI DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dtd. 4/4/2023, passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Udaipur whereby learned Judge rejected the complaint of the appellant filed against the respondent No.2. Counsel for the appellant submits that on 7/7/2021 the appellant filed a complaint against the respondent No.2 before the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur in respect to the occurrence, which was taken place on 5/7/2021. When the Police did not take any action on the said complaint against the respondent No.2, the appellant filed a complaint before the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Udaipur. But, instead of sending the said complaint to the concerned Police Station under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C., the learned trial court recorded the statements of the appellant/complainant and two other witnesses under Ss. 200 & 202 Cr.P.C and vide impugned order dtd. 4/4/2023 rejected the said complaint. Counsel submits that the appellant/complainant and other witnesses have made specific allegation against the respondent No.2, but the learned trial court without considering the evidence in its right perspective, rejected the complaint of the appellant. The order impugned is per se illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(2.) Per contra, counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the complaint in this case has been filed by the appellant after a considerable delay and no medical report has been filed. The learned trial court after considering all the aspect of the matter has rightly rejected the complaint of the appellant. The order impugned is perfectly justified and requires no interference. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other material available on record.

(3.) The appellant filed the complaint just after two days of the incident before the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur and in the said complaint, the appellant nowhere mentioned about any injuries received on her body in the incident. When the Police did not take any action against the respondent No.2, the appellant filed a complaint before the trial court. In the complaint, specific allegation for offence under SC/ST Act has been made by the appellant against the respondent No.2 as well as the appellant (CW-1) and independent witnesses namely Amlendu Kumar (CW- 2) and Ajary Kumar Rai (CW-3) have also specifically mentioned about the misbehavior done by the accused-respondent No.2 with the appellant. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned trial court without considering the statements of the witnesses and other aspects of the matter, rejected the complaint of the appellant. Hence, the impugned order dtd. 4/4/2023 passed by the trial court is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial court with the direction to pass a fresh order after taking into consideration all the documents and statements so recorded before it and after hearing both the parties.