Allahabad High Court
Dr. Santram Barai vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 July, 2020
Author: Ali Zamin
Bench: Ali Zamin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 92 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2317 of 2020 Petitioner :- Dr. Santram Barai Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kumar Chaurasia Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Daya Shankar Hon'ble Ali Zamin,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner to set aside the judgment and the order dated 03.02.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1 Azamgarh passed in Criminal Revision No.260 of 2018 Computer No. C.N.R. No.UPZA 010062892018 (Dr. Sant Ram Barai Vs. State of U.P.) and judgment and order dated 01.08.2018 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10 Azamgarh in case No.599 of 2014 (Ramker Vs. Sant Ram and others).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to F.I.R. lodged by late Ramker Chaurasiya, father of the respondent no.2, petitioner prepared a forged document of family of informant's grandson and instated a case for this purpose a discharge application was moved by the petitioner that informant Ramker had moved an application 91C before learned District and Sessions Judge for taking an action against the petitioner in a proceeding under guardian and wards Act which has been rejected by holding that the photo copy of family register is valueless and not admissible in evidence. The discharge application was rejected by the impugned order observing that prima facie case under Section 465 I.P.C. is made out as the evidences are available against him. He submits that application 91C2 was moved by father of the respondent no.2 was rejected by the learned District Judge observing that if original document is not filed then document is a waste paper and it cannot be admitted in evidence therefore no criminal offence is made out against him. He submits that in view of the order of learned District and Sessions Judge passed on application 91C, the impugned orders are not sustainable.
Learned A.G.A. opposes the application and submits that as per investigation apart from forged photo copy available on record evidences of Secretary and B.D.O. are available against the petitioner, therefore, discharge application has been rightly rejected by learned A.C.J.M. and revisional court considering the material on record and applying their mind.
As per order dated 01.08.2018 by learned A.C.J.M. has held that from the perusal of the prosecution documents it is clear that during investigation, investigating officer has recorded the statement of informant Radhey Shyam and others in the case diary, at the stage of discharge minute assessment of evidence is not required, it has to be looked whether on the basis of available documents of the prosecution proper grounds for framing charge of the alleged offence as available or not in the instant case from the perusal of whole case diary and documents of the prosecution available on record sufficient grounds are available to frame charge under Section 465 I.P.C. against accused. Learned revisional court vide its impugned order dated 03.02.2020 has rejected the revision observing that in the protest petition it is mentioned that availability of forged copy of family register is itself proof regarding which on 10.04.2007 Block Development Officer has submitted report that the family register which has been prepared by Santram is forged, fabricated and concocted and from the evidence collected during investigation by investigating officer prima facie preparation of forged copy of family register is reflected.
Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts and circumstances of the case and learned counsel for the petitioner could not controvert the submission of learned A.G.A. that apart from photo copy of the family register evidences of Secretary and B.D.O are available on record, therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order is improper therefore the impugned order calls for no interference by this Court.
Accordingly, the present petition has no force and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.7.2020 Krishna*