Allahabad High Court
Ravindra Sharma And Anr. vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 1 April, 2014
Author: Het Singh Yadav
Bench: Het Singh Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 5 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 726 of 2014 Revisionist :- Ravindra Sharma And Anr. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Mithilesh Kumar Shukla,Avanish Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Het Singh Yadav,J.
This criminal revision under sections 397 and 401 Code of Criminal Procedure ( in short 'the Code') is directed against the order dated 11.2.2014 passed by the Special Judge ( D.A.A) on the discharge application purported to be under section 245(2) of the Code.
Sri Mithilesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the complainant first lodged the First Information Report at police station, Jagdishpura, Agra alleging that the revisionists had committed loot and had taken away gold jewellery of his wife while she was going with him on bike. The police investigated into the matter and found the allegations made in the First Information Report itotally false and ultimately closed the matter. Thereafter the complainant moved an application under section 156(3) of the Code with a prayer to direct the local police to lodge F.I.R and to investigate the matter. The police again investigated into the matter and submitted final report to the Court concerned. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the protest petition against the final report in the Court of Special Judge (D.A.A) which has been treated as a complaint case. The learned Special Judge (D.A.A) after having recorded the statement of the complainant and the witnesses under sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure issued process against the revisionists under section 204 of the Code. The revisionists thereafter challenged the aforesaid order of the learned Special Judge (D.A.A) in this Court invoking inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code. This Court, however, vide order dated 8.1.2014 finally disposed of the application under section 482 of the Code with the observation that the revisionists may move an application under section 245(2) of the Code in the court below for their discharge. The revisionists, accordingly, moved an application for their discharge in the court below but the same has been rejected without considering that the charge against the revisionists is groundless. Thus, the impugned order is not in-consonance with the law and, therefore, liable to be set aside. To bolster his submission learned counsel relied upon Ajay Kumar Ghose Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2009) 14 SCC 115.
The matter requires consideration.
Admit.
Notice on behalf of respondent No.1 has been accepted by learned A.G.A. Therefore, no notice is required to be served upon respondent No.1.
Issue notice to respondent No.2 returnable at an early date..
The respondents are directed to file their respective counter affidavit within four weeks from today.
List thereafter.
Till the next date of listing, proceedings of Special S.T. No.559 of 2013 ( Roop Kishore Vs. Ravindra Sharma and others) shall remain stayed.
Order Date :- 1.4.2014 G.S