Supreme Court Dismisses Criminal Appeal in Jitendra Nath Mishra Case Over Assault and Abuse Charges; Upholds Summoning Order

What is the Case About?

• In this case appellant filed the appeal to challenge the summoning order passed by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989's Special Court. Appellant filed this appeal in the Supreme Court after the High Court previously rejected the appeal.
• In this case a First Information Report (FIR) that the complainant filed with the Khalilabad Police Station, alleging assault, abuse, and other violations of the 1989 Act and different sections of the Indian Penal Code. The culprits were identified in the FIR as co-accused, his brother (the appellant), and an unidentified individual. The complainant and his wife both accused Dharmendra(co-accused) and the appellant of the assault and abuse during their respective witness testimony during the trial (PW-1 and PW-2, respectively).
• The main issue in this case is whether the Special Court was justified in summoning the appellant for trial under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Contentions of the Parties:

• The Learned Counsel on the behalf of the appellant made a number of arguments against the summons order. These allegations included the Delay in filing the FIR, the complainant and his wife's statements being contradictory, and the appellant's claimed co-accusation being embellished. The appellant maintained that the summons order was arbitrary and that the evidence was unreliable.
• The Learned Counsel on the behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh, claimed that Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. PC) gave the Special Court the discretion to summon someone for trial. The Supreme Court's ruling in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92 served as the foundation for the respondent's argument.

Observation by the Court:

• The court determined that the complainant's and his wife's accounts of co-accused and the appellant's abuse, including comments about caste, were consistent. The Court determined that the evidence was sufficient for the Special Court to form the necessary satisfaction and summon the appellant, notwithstanding the fact that the appellant was not named in the FIR despite being co-accused's sibling and being named as an assailant. 
• It was also held that, the summons order and the High Court's ruling upholding it, according to the Court, were both valid. The Special Court was given the opportunity to hear the appellant's arguments during the trial regarding the FIR's tardy filing, the testimonies' discrepancies, the lack of any public witnesses, and the appellant's familiarity with the complainant's family.
• The Court dismissed the appeal, urged the Special Court to move the trial ahead quickly, and instructed it to take into account the appellant's arguments as well as any additional issues brought up throughout the proceedings.