The Supreme Court of India Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Criminal Appeal No.
1111 of 2003
Deo Sharma Vs State of U.P. & Ors.
the appellant was serving as Superintending Engineer in U.P. Electricity Board,
one Vimla Devi filed a complaint on 2.2.1998, alleging that she had been
engaged by the appellant as a maid servant a few days earlier, that on
1.2.1998, the appellant gave her some tablet which made her unconscious and
when she regained consciousness she found that she had no clothes and that she
was raped when she was unconscious. The police investigated and filed a report
stating that no offence, as alleged, has been made out. The said Vimla Devi
filed a protest petition.
hearing the protest petition, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur
made an order on 31.8.1998 summoning the petitioner to face the charges. The
appellant made an application for recalling the said order. The same was
rejected by order dated 11.7.2000. The appellant filed a petition under Section
482 Cr.P.C. before the Allahabad High Court challenging the orders dated
11.7.2000. The High Court dismissed the petition by order dated 21.8.2000
holding that the petition was premature and the appellant could raise all
contentions at the appropriate stage. The said order is challenged in this
appeal filed by special leave.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a false case has been set up
against the appellant on account of the strict action taken by him against
defaulting electricity consumers. He also submitted that the police had found
that he had not committed the offence and his contentions were not considered
by the learned Magistrate while ordering summons.
We find that the High Court found that it could not interfere with the
summoning order, in view of the specific averment in the complaint. We also
find that the High Court has safeguarded the interest of the appellant with the
following observation: "However, considering the fact that the applicant
has been summoned on the basis of the protest petition and he being Chief
Engineer in the Electricity Department, is not likely to abscond, it is
provided that in case the applicant surrenders and apply for
bail in the aforesaid case, then his application shall be considered and
disposed of by the courts below expeditiously in accordance with law preferable
on the day." We are told that subsequently the appellant has retired from
service as Chief Engineer of the Electricity Board.
In the circumstance, we find no ground to interfere with the order.
we dispose of this appeal reiterating the observation that if the appellant
surrenders and applies for bail, his application shall be considered and
disposed of by the learned Magistrate on the same day having regard to the
peculiar facts of the case.
(P. SATHASIVAM) NEW DELHI;
JUNE 26, 2008.