Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has sought a detailed explanation from a Special Judge in Aligarh after it was found that an accused was summoned under a non-existent provision of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The High Court observed that such a casual and careless exercise of judicial power has serious ramifications for personal liberty, which is protected as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The matter arose in the case Rajan Bajaj v State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, where the applicant approached the High Court challenging the legality of a summoning order dated April 30, 2024. A Bench presided over by Justice Praveen Kumar Giri took serious note of the fact that the summoning order invoked “Section 3(2)(5)” of the SC/ST Act, a provision that does not exist in the statute.
Highlighting the gravity of the issue, the Court directed both the present and the then Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Aligarh, who were associated with passing the impugned order, to submit an explanation as to why such an order was issued in a casual manner. The Bench made it clear that arbitrary summoning of an individual, especially under stringent penal provisions, directly affects the individual’s personal liberty and undermines constitutional safeguards.
The Court has fixed January 30, 2026, as the date by which the explanation must be submitted, and the matter will be taken up for further hearing on that date.
The case has its origins in a property dispute. The applicant alleged that he was falsely implicated after being allotted land declared as industrial land by the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (UPSIDC). According to him, the dispute escalated when the complainant attempted to exert pressure on him through criminal proceedings.
The complainant accused the applicant of committing offences under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) of the Indian Penal Code, along with offences under the SC/ST Act. On the basis of an application moved before the Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, an FIR was registered against the applicant by the police.
However, after completion of the investigation, the police filed a closure report, concluding that no prima facie case was made out against the accused. Dissatisfied with the police findings, the complainant filed a protest petition challenging the closure report.
Subsequently, the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Aligarh, treated the matter as a complaint case and proceeded to record statements under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). After this exercise, the court passed the summoning order against the applicant on April 30, 2024.
Challenging the summons before the High Court, the applicant contended that the order was illegal and unsustainable, as it was based on a provision that does not exist in law. He pointed out that while the SC/ST Act does contain Section 3(2)(v), there is no provision numbered Section 3(2)(5). The applicant further argued that this fundamental error reflected a non-application of mind by the trial court.
In addition, the applicant alleged that the trial court failed to properly consider the closure report filed by the police and did not comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 202 of the CrPC, particularly since the accused resided beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court.
Taking these submissions into account, the High Court sought a response not only from the trial judges concerned but also from the complainant in the case. Meanwhile, the Court granted interim protection to the applicant, directing that no coercive steps be taken against him in connection with the SC/ST Act case until the next date of hearing.
The Bench further ordered that if any warrant had been issued against the applicant, the same would remain in abeyance until further orders.
