Allahabad High Court
Ayush Anurag vs State Of U.P. on 18 January, 2020
Author: Rajul Bhargava
Bench: Rajul Bhargava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 214 of 2020 Revisionist :- Ayush Anurag Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Kamalesh Kumar Nishad,Anil Kumar Verma,Lalit Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present criminal revision has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 4.12.2019 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Ghaziabad in Criminal Case No.192 of 2018 (State vs. Ayush Anurag), arising out of Case Crime No. 712 of 2016, under Sections 328, 376, 504, 506 I.P.C., Section 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 66 I.T. Act, P.S. Kotwali Ghaziabad, District- Ghaziabad.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has challenged the impugned order whereby charges have been framed against the revisionist for offences under Sections 376, 328, 504, 506 I.P.C., Section 3/4 POCSO Act and 66 Information Technology Act. He has argued that in fact initially the charge-sheet was submitted on 22.7.2015 under Sections 328, 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. and thereafter the Investigating Officer without obtaining any permission from the Magistrate further investigated the case and submitted second supplementary charge-sheet on 25.4.2017 under Section 3/4 POCSO Act and thereafter on 22.5.2018 submitted third supplementary charge-sheet under Section 66 I.T. Act. He has argued that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel vs. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel and others AIR 2017 SC 774 the Magistrate could not have directed the further investigation and therefore the trial court without considering the aforesaid fact illegally framed charges against the revisionist. Therefore, the impugned order may be set-aside.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the revisionist and pointed out that the revisionist had challenged the charge-sheet dated 4.3.2017 in Criminal Misc. Application (U/s 482 Cr.P.C.) No.20413 of 2017 in which the prayer for quashing the charge-sheet was refused and the revisionist was directed to appear before the court and obtain bail within 15 days vide order dated 21.8.2017. Thereafter, the revisionist filed another Criminal Misc. Application (U/s 482 Cr.P.C.) No.39793 of 2019 challenging the charge-sheet dated 4.3.2017 and the supplementary charge-sheet dated 25.7.2017 and 22.5.2018. The same was, however, disposed of by the Court vide order dated 7.11.2019 by a very detailed order considering the law of the Hon'ble Apex Court as noted above (supra). The revisionist suppressing the aforesaid fact has again approached the Court for setting-aside the order whereby charges have been framed. Learned A.G.A. has pointed out that the present criminal revision has been filed in suppression of material fact that another Criminal Misc. Application (U/s 482 Cr.P.C.) No. 39793 of 2019 has already been rejected in which same ground was taken before the Court. There are specific allegation of commission of rape against the revisionist. The revisionist who is an unscrupulous litigant has been avoiding to appear before the court since 2015. Now, the charges have been framed on 4.12.2019 and the case is fixed for evidence.
In the light of aforesaid, considering the submission advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A., I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Judge whereby charges have been framed against the revisionist.
The present criminal revision is bereft of merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
However, considering the fact that the trial under the POCSO Act is pending since 2015, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of aforesaid case and conclude the same in accordance with law on day to day basis in consonance with the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C. without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.
In case, the revisionist does not co-operate in the trial, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail and take him into custody.
Office is directed to communicate the order to the court concerned within a week.
Order Date :- 18.1.2020 Vikas