Allahabad High Court
Munni Lal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 July, 2025
Author: Dinesh Pathak
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:125969 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 13627 of 2025 Applicant :- Munni Lal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Prakash Yadav,Divyanshu Nandan Tripathi,Krishna Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ganga Prasad Gupta Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
1. Heard Shri Anand Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ganga Prasad Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for State-Respondent.
2. The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS, assailing the order dated 17.03.2025 passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Kaushambi in Transfer Application No. 26/2025 filed on behalf of the present applicant beseeching to connect and be tried the Sessions Trial No. 252 of 2024 (State Vs. Munni Lal and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 262 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 307, 436, 323, 427, 506, 34, 452 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, P.S.- Sandipanghat, District- Kaushambi pendign Additional District and Sessions Judge/FTC-II Kaushambi along with Case No. 333/2023 (State Vs. Yadvendra Singh @ Guddu Yadav and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 227/2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 34, 316, 120-B IPC, Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Section 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, Section 3/25/30 of Arms Act, P.S.- Sandipanghat, District- Kaushambi pending before ADJ, Special Judge SC/ST Act Court, Kaushambi, and to transfer Session Trial No. 252 of 2024 to the court of ADJ, Special Judge SC/ST Act Kaushambi, has been rejected.
3. Facts culled out from the record are that present applicant has moved transfer application no. 26/2025 and prayed for following two cases to be clubbed and tried together:-
(i) An F.I.R. being Case Crime No. 0227 of 2023 dated 15.09.2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 34, 316, 120-B IPC and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and 3/25/30 of Arms Act, Police Station- Sandipanghat, District- Kaushambi, has been lodged by Munni Lal, with respect to the occurrence of offence dated 15.09.2023, alleging a triple murder. Arising out of aforesaid Case Crime No. 0227/2023, a criminal case has been registered, being Case No. 333/2023 (State Vs. Yadvendra Singh) pending in the court of Additional District Jude (SC/ST Act), Kaushambi.
(ii). Subsequently, another F.I.R. has been lodged, being Case Crime No. 0263/2023 dated 20.10.2023, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 436, 323, 427, 506, 34, 452 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, P.S.- Sandipanghat, District Kaushambi lodged by Sugreev Singh (Respondent No. 2 herein) qua incident dated 15.09.2023, at subsequent time around 6:30 a.m., alleging gunshot injury inflicted on Anoop Singh. Arising out of said FIR, Session Trial No. 252/2024 (State Vs. Munni Lala and others) has been registered and pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-II, Kaushambi.
4. As per Paragraph Nos. 15, 16 and 17 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant application, previously both the aforesaid trial were clubbed and tried together. However, at a later state, Sugreev Singh (respondent no. 2 herein) has moved an application to the decouple the aforesaid both trial cases, being Transfer Application No. 13 of 2025. Aforesaid transfer application was allowed and both the trials were decoupled, to be tried separately. Being aggrieved, present applicant has moved transfer application, being Transfer Application No. 26 of 2025 (Munni Lal Vs. State), to club both the aforesaid trial cases and try them simultaneously. Learned Sessions Judge, Kaushambi has rejected the aforesaid transfer application, vide its order dated 17.03.2025, which is under challenged before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that with respect to the incident in question, i.e. 15.09.2023, two FIRs were lodged; First, being Case Crime No. 227 of 2023 dated 15.09.2023 showing the date of incident dated 15.09.2023 at around 5:30 a.m. and another FIR, being Case Crime No. 0263 of 2023, has been lodged, based on the order passed on the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., showing the same date of incident dated 15.09.2023 at around 6:30 a.m. He has emphasized that subsequent Case Crime No. 263/2023 has been registered in counterblast to the previous Case Crime No. 227/2023. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the statement of Subhash Chandra (First informant of Case Crime No. 227/2023) under Section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. to the effect that Anoop Singh, who is shown to have been injured with the firearm in Case Crime No. 263/2023, was infact injured in the previous incident took place at approximately 5:30 a.m. It is next submitted that statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 21.09.2023; however, application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed on 27.09.2023, therefore, incident which has been narrated in the subsequent FIR i.e. Case Crime No. 263/2023 cannot be said to be a separate incident. It is further submitted that learned Sessions Judge has illegally relied upon the report submitted by Special Judge SC/ST Act and fail to appreciate the statement of Subhash Chandra under Section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has contended that time of occurrence of offence as mentioned in the previous Case Crime No. 227/2023 and mentioned in subsequent Case Crime No. 263/2023 are different. Incident mentioned in the subsequent FIR No. 263/2023 is consequence effect of the previous incident which mentioned in the Case Crime No. 227/2023; therefore Case Crime No. 263/2023 cannot be said to be a counterblast of the previous Case Crime No. 227/2023. It is next submitted that learned Sessions Judge has decoupled both the aforementioned case by order passed in Transfer Application No. 13 of 2025, which became final between the parties.
7. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it manifest that Case No. 333/2023 is arising out of Case Crime No. 227/2023 and Sessions Trial No. 252 of 2024 is arising out of Case Crime No. 263/2023. As per Case Crime No. 227/2023, father of the first informant, namely, Heera Lal, his sister and brother -in-law (husband of the sister) have been assassinated by named accused. However, as per version of the subsequent FIR, being Case Crime No. 263/2023, in the aftermath of the triple murder, a mob created a ruckus in the area. While son of the first informant, namely, Anoop Singh went outside the house, he has sustained firearm injury.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant has tried to submit that firearm injury cause to Anoop Singh was, in fact, inflicted in a previous incident, which is the subject matter of Case Crime No. 227/2023, therefore, same cannot be considered as a separate incident.
11. I am sceptical of the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as mentioned above. Mere statement of Subhash Chandra (First informant of Case Crime No. 227/2023) under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. cannot be made basis to decide that the occurrence of offence as mentioned in Case Crime No. 263/2023 is the counterblast of the previous incident mentioned in Case Crime No. 227/2023. The contents of both the FIRs, on their face, are unequivocally refer to different incidents and from their perusal, prima facie, it cannot be inferred that both the incidents, as averred in both FIRs, are relate to the same incident. While rejecting the Transfer Application No. 26/2025, learned Sessions Judge has relied upon the report dated 24.01.2025 submitted by Special Judge, SC/ST Act Kaushambi, whereby it is unequivocally mentioned that incident mentioned in both the FIRs are different. In previous FIR incident of triple murder was mentioned; however, in subsequent FIR aftermath of the triple murder has been mentioned. Learned Session Judge has also pointed out that Case Crime No. 263/2023 is not related to SC/ST Act whereas previous Case Crime No. 227/2023 is related to the SC/ST Act. Learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the transfer application moved on behalf of the present applicant intending to club the Case No. 333 of 2023 and Session Trial No. 252/2025.
12. In this conspectus, as above, I do not find any justifiable ground to entertain the instant application, and interfere in the order impugned dated 17.03.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kaushambi, in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS. There is no illegality, perversity, ambiguity or abuse of process of law in the order under challenge. Nothing has been pointed out that would warrant passing an order to secure the ends of justice.
13. Resultantly, instant application under Section 528 BNSS, being misconceived and devoid on merits, is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 29.07.2025 Sharad/-
(Dinesh Pathak, J.)