Prayagraj- The Allahabad High Court has held that a Magistrate’s initial cognizance of an offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is a procedural irregularity, not an incurable illegality, unless the accused shows prejudice or a failure of justice. Justice Santosh Rai dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 722 of 2020, Ajai Yadav and 2 others v. State of U.P. and another, on October 15. Judgment had been reserved on October 13.

The appellants challenged a May 22, 2019 order of the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Ballia, in Complaint Case No. 65 of 2017. That order summoned them under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act.

The allegations: The complaint was filed by Gulab Chandra Ram, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste. It alleges that on June 11, 2016, around 5 p.m., the accused came to his door armed with lathis over a quarrel between children. They allegedly used caste-based abuse, threatened to drive him out of the village, and assaulted him and his wife, Buchiya Devi. These are allegations at the summoning stage and have not been tried.

The appellants’ argument: The complaint was first filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, who took cognizance and recorded statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC on October 19, 2016 and December 14, 2016. Citing Sections 2(bd) and 14 of the SC/ST Act, the appellants argued that this was contrary to law and invalidated the Special Judge’s summoning order.

The court’s reasoning:

• The 2016 amendment (Act No. 1 of 2016) lets Special Courts take direct cognizance. That does not mean every earlier step by a Magistrate voids later proceedings.

• Even if the Magistrate’s action was irregular, the complaint was transferred to the Special Judge on September 26, 2017, and the Special Judge independently considered the material before summoning.

• Relying on Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya v. Anand Athabhai Chaudhari (2022) 15 SCC 228, the court noted that the Supreme Court held that cognizance by a Magistrate does not vitiate the entire proceedings. Doing so would give an accused a premium, and the victim should not suffer.

• Section 460(e) CrPC protects cognizance taken erroneously but in good faith by a Magistrate not empowered to take it.

• The appellants showed no prejudice or failure of justice.

On the merits, the court said that at the summoning stage it need only see whether a prima facie case exists. It does not weigh evidence or hold a “mini-trial”. It found the summoning order well reasoned.

Bail directions: If the appellants are not already on bail, they must appear before the trial court and apply for regular bail within two weeks. No extension will be entertained. The trial court should decide the application expeditiously, preferably the same day. If they fail to appear, the trial court may take coercive steps under law.