Vinod Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others

1. Case was called out in the revised list. Despite service of notice upon opposite party no. 2, no one has appeared on his behalf.

2. Heard Ms. Jyoti Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ashok Kumar Singh Bais, learned counsel for the appellant, and the learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the entire record.

3. The present Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 15.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities Act), Saharanpur, whereby cognizance has been taken only under Sections 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act on the basis of the charge-sheet dated 21.05.2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 130 of 2024, Police Station?Sadar Bazar, District?Saharanpur.

4. The solitary submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that the FIR was lodged under Sections 420, 406, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, but the charge-sheet was submitted only under Sections 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. It is contended that the Magistrate ought to have taken cognizance under Section 420 IPC as well.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that since the charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer under Sections 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, the Magistrate was bound to take cognizance only for the offences mentioned therein.

6. In State of Gujarat vs. Girish Radhakishan Varde;AIR 2014 SC 620, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that at the time of taking cognizance, the Magistrate has no right to include or exclude any sections and is bound to take cognizance of the sections mentioned in the charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Officer.

7. So far as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Magistrate has not taken cognizance under Section 420 IPC is concerned, he may raise his grievance at the time of framing of charge..

8. In the present case, since the charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, the Magistrate has taken cognizance only in respect of the said offences.

9. In the opinion of this Court, the Magistrate has not committed any illegality or infirmity in taking cognizance under Sections 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

10. The criminal appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Madan Pal Singh,J.)

May 7, 2026

Akbar