Allahabad High Court
Sri Arun Kumar Sharma vs State Of U.P. on 19 September, 2025
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:168582
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 36250 of 2025
Sri Arun Kumar Sharma
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Pulak Ganguly
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.
1. Heard Mr. Pulak Ganguly, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the records.
2. By means of the present application U/S 528 BNSS the applicant has prayed to quash the impugned order dated 02.08.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.14, Prayagraj in S.T. No.137 of 2018 (State Vs. Anoop Sharma and others), arising out of Case Crime No.118 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 201, 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha of SC/ST Act, Police Station Karchhana, District Prayagraj, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.14, Prayagraj.
3. It has been submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the author of the first information report which was lodged on 02.03.2018. According to the first information report the brother of the applicant Upendra Sharma was murdered while on the other hand several other persons received grievous injuries and the applicant was also fired upon by the accused persons. It has been submitted by the applicant that after investigation charge-sheet was filed against certain accused persons, who are facing trial in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.14, Allahabad. It is during trial and after recording the testimony of two witnesses for the prosecution including the applicant, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed seeking to summon five persons as accused to be tried along with the other accused persons. The said application has come to be disposed of by the trial court on 02.08.2025 stating that the application filed by the applicant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. would be considered only after the the witnesses namely, Babloo Sonkar and Ahat Babol are examined inasmuch as the allegations have been levelled by the applicant against the accused under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the persons against whom the said provisions have been invoked are the two witnesses of the prosecution which are yet to be examined and accordingly has deferred consideration of the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after examination of the two aforesaid witnesses.
4. On the other hand he further submits that after examination of the two witnesses for the prosecution substantial material already exists on the basis of which the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. preferred by the applicant ought to have been decided and accordingly, in the present applicant under Section 528 BNSS has challenged the validity of the order dated 02.08.2025 and further sought a direction to the trial court to proceed to consider and decide the application preferred by the applicant under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
5. Learned AGA has opposed the application. It has been submitted by learned AGA that as per the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. the applicant has sought to join five other persons as accused in the present trial. It has further stated that it is discretion of the trial court to consider the application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and consider the material on record including the evidence which has been tendered by the witnesses and consider whether it would be appropriate to join the other persons mentioned in the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to be tried along with other accused. He further submits that due reasoning has been given by the trial court for deferment of the application moved by the applicant and submits that there is no infirmity in the same and reasons given by the trial court are cogent and relevant and cannot be held to be perverse and arbitrary and accordingly, prays for rejection of the instant applicant.
6. After considering the rival contentions, it is noticed that the trial court has considered the application and only deferred the consideration of the application finally after evidence is recorded of two persons who have made allegations under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. There is no denying of the fact that apart from various sections of the I.P.C. the applicant has invoked provisions of Section 3(1)Da and 3(1)Dha of SC/ST Act against the accused and also against the persons whom he seeks to be joined as the accused in the present trial. Accordingly, to determine the existence/veracity of such allegations against the persons who are yet to be made an accused the court has deferred the consideration of the application till such time as the evidence of two persons against whom such offence can be committed are examined during trial.
7. Accordingly, this Court does not find any infirmity with the reasoning given by the trial court and do not find it fit case for interference in the trial proceedings. Apart from the above, this Court find that the applicant is not prejudiced by deferment of consideration of the application moved by him under Section 319 Cr.P.C. inasmuch the same would be liable to be considered after examination of the two witnesses as stated in the said order are examined. Accordingly, this Court do not find any good ground for interference in exercise of powers under Section 528 BNSS. The application is devoid of merits and is accordingly, rejected.
8. However, this Court hope and trust that the trial court shall proceed to consider the application of the applicant filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after recording the statement of the persons as stated in the impugned order dated 02.08.2025, in accordance with law.
(Alok Mathur,J.) September 19, 2025 AS