Allahabad High Court
Akash Chaudhary vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 January, 2023
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 66 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28152 of 2022 Applicant :- Akash Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hanuman Deen Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Hanuman Deen Verma, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
Challenge in this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to the charge sheet dated 20.01.2021 submitted in Case Crime No. 356 of 2020, under Sections 323, 341, 326, 329, 504, 506, 307, 34 IPC, Police Station Purani Basti, District Basti, the Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order dated 01.02.2021 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti in Case No. 439 of 2021 (State Vs. Akash Chaudhari and Others) under Sections 323, 341, 326, 329, 504, 506, 307, 34 IPC, Police Station Purani Basti, District Basti, as well as the order dated 13.10.2031 passed by Additional District Judge, F.T.C.-IInd, Basti in Sessions Trial No. 154 of 2021 (State Vs. Akash Chaudhary) whereby the discharge application filed by applicant in terms of Section 227 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that from the perusal of the case diary (particularly as per the recital contained in Parcha No.-17 of case diary of aforementioned case crime number), no offence under Section 326 is made out against applicant, therefore, court below has illegally rejected the discharge application filed by applicant. Consequently, the order dated 13.10.2021 passed by court below, rejecting the discharge application filed by applicant is liable to be set aside by this Court.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present application. He submits that the issue, as to whether, any charge under Section 326 can be made against applicant or not as per the material on record is itself, a triable issue and can be appropriately dealt with by court below at the time of framing of charge, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 211 Cr.P.C However, that by itself cannot be a ground to discharge the applicant from the proceedings of above-mentioned sessions case as applicant has been charge sheeted under other Sections also. Placing reliance upon the Three Judges Bench judgement of Supreme Court in Tarun Jit Tejpal Vs. State of Goa (2020) 17 SCC 556, the learned A.G.A. submits that prosecution of an accused can be maintained even in the case of grave suspicious. In the present case, the witness examined by Investigation Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have supported the FIR. It is, on the basis of above and other material collected by Investigating Officer that he has submitted the charge-sheet. As such, it cannot be said at this stage that prosecution story is false or there is no material to support the prosecution of applicant. On the aforesaid premise, the learned A.G.A. submits that no illegality has been committed by court below in rejecting the discharge application.
When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.
As a result, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.
It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.1.2023 Vinay