Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Vijay Pratap Singh (Raja Bhaiya) vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 4 April, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari, Aniruddha Bose
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 554 OF 2022
[Arising Out of SLP (CRL.) NO. 84/2019]
VIJAY PRATAP SINGH (RAJA BHAIYA) Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Respondent(s)
ORDER
Leave granted.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, we find it difficult to appreciate the procedure which has been adopted in this matter relating to FIR No. 517 of 2014, Police Station- Sikandara Rao, District- Hathras, pertaining to offences under Section 147, 323, 504, 426 and 395 IPC.
The High Court, in its earlier order dated 16.04.2018, dealt with a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and found no reason to quash the proceedings but, granted one month’s time to the petitioners before it, to appear before the Court and to move an application claiming discharge.
The High Court also provided thus:-
“If the concerned court after hearing the counsel Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Rajni Mukhi for the accused feels persuaded to have the view that Date: 2022.04.05 18:16:04 IST Reason: the accused ought not to have been summoned and the charge is groundless it shall not abstain from discharging the accused only on the ground that the 2 material available at the time of summoning was the same which is available on record at the time of hearing the discharge application. On the other hand, if the lower court even after hearing the counsel for accused holds the view that the does not indicate the charges to be groundless it shall make an order to that effect and proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law and shall also be free to adopt such measures to procure the attendance of the accused as the law permits.” Thereafter, the Trial Court observed in its short order dated 23.05.2018 that no other documents or evidence was to be considered at the stage of framing of charge and on the basis of investigation, the application of the accused persons was liable to be rejected. Thus, the application under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected.
Again the matter was taken to the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 2003 of 2018. The High Court observed that the learned Magistrate had not recorded any finding in the impugned order that there was sufficient material on record for framing of the charge, even while refusing the discharge application. Hence, the matter was remitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras for re- consideration of the prayer made by the applicants for discharge.
In our view, the process of framing charge ought not to have been allowed to be stretched beyond what is required to be considered by the Court concerned at the given stage. The orders in the present case have only confounded the matter and the result is that the case has not proceeded further. 3 We, therefore, deem it appropriate to direct that the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall proceed in accordance with law and may pass a speaking order to the extent requisite and necessary for the purpose of framing of charge; or for that matter, not framing charge for one or more of the offences as alleged. Subject to the observations and directions foregoing, this appeal stands disposed of.
………………………………………………….J (DINESH MAHESHWARI) ………………………………………………….J (ANIRUDDHA BOSE) NEW DELHI;
APRIL 4, 2022.
4
ITEM NO.27 COURT NO.14 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 84/2019 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 19-06-2018 in CRLR No. 2003/2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad) VIJAY PRATAP SINGH (RAJA BHAIYA) Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No. 179363/2018 – FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 04-04-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sarvam Ritam Khare, AOR Mr. Nihar Ranjan Singh, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Tomar, Adv.
Mr. Chandra Pratap Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Shashank Shekhar Singh, AOR Mr. Shaurya Krishna, Adv.
Mr. Saket Gautam, Adv.
Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the Signed Order.
All pending applications stand disposed of.
(SHRADDHA MISHRA) (RANJANA SHAILEY) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH) (Signed Order is placed on the file)