Allahabad High Court
Shailendra Singh And Anr. vs State Of U.P. Through Prin.Secy. Home ... on 27 February, 2020
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 14 Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 4594 of 2020 Petitioner :- Shailendra Singh And Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Prin.Secy. Home And Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhirendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 18.01.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. IInd, Rae Bareli in Criminal Revision No.40 of 2017 (Prabhakar Singh & Anr. vs. State of U.P.) and order dated 22.02.2017 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.13, Rae Bareli in Case No.282 of 2014 (State of U.P. vs. Shailendra Singh and Ors.).
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the investigating officer recorded statement of the complainant namely Amar Verma and others. Medical examination of the injured namely Udal and Ram Lakhan was also conducted. The injured were directed for x-ray but they did not do the same and on the next day when they were on the way to Rae Bareli on their motorcycle, they met with an accident and got admitted in District Hospital, Rae Bareli, where their x-rays were conducted and fracture was found.
On the basis of the x-ray which was conducted after the accident, the investigating officer sent charge-sheet under Sections 147, 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC to the Circle Officer for further action. The circle officer of the said circle directed for further investigation. Thereafter, further investigation was conducted vide Parcha No. SCD I, dated 05.09.2012 wherein the investigating officer has collected the entry and discharge papers of the injured from District Hospital, Rae Bareli.
Learned counsel has submitted that after perusal of the said documents, the investigating officer found that no offence is made out under Section 325 IPC and sent the same charge-sheet with the observation in the case diary that the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC is deleted and charge-sheet is only under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC. Learned counsel has submitted that on the said charge-sheet, the Court concerned has taken cognizance and summoned the petitioner under Section 325 IPC also for trial.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that at the stage of charge, the petitioner took the plea that no material was available on record to establish commission of offence punishable under Section 325 IPC, and further that the investigating officer in the subsequent investigation found that no case is made out against the petitioners for offence punishable under Section 325 IPC, therefore, charges under the said section may not be framed against the petitioners.
The Court below vide order dated 22.02.2017 (supra) charged the petitioners under Sections 147, 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC. Against the said order passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.13, Rae Bareli, a revision being Criminal Revision No.40 of 2017 (Prabhakar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.) was filed before Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. IInd, Rae Bareli, which was also rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that both the aforesaid orders are illegal and contrary to the law established and deserve to be set aside.
Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by A.C.J.M., Rae Bareli as well as by revisional Court. The material on record was tested thrice: first, at the stage of issuing the summon, second, at the stage of charge and thirdly, at the stage of revision. There are materials available on record for prima-facie satisfaction of the Court concerned for issuance of summoning order and framing of charges against the petitioners under Section 325 IPC.
It has further been argued by learned AGA that the actual test or proper appreciation of the evidence on record is at the stage of trial. He further submitted that the petitioner is charged under Sections 323 as well as 325 IPC. Both the charges are triable by Magistrate. Learned AGA has invited attention of the Court towards Para - 9 of order dated 18.01.2020 (supra) and submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners if the charge under Section 325 IPC is framed against the petitioners. In such circumstances, the instant petition being devoid of merit be dismissed as such.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as orders dated 18.01.2020 and 22.02.2017 (supra).
In the criminal revision, the revisional Court has dealt the matter circumspectly and passed a detailed and reasoned order. While rejecting the revision, the Court concerned has not found any illegality or error in the order passed by the Court concerned/A.C.J.M., Rae Bareli. The material on record, which was collected by the investigating officer, has already been tested at the stage of summoning as well as at the stage of framing of charge. The grievance as raised by learned counsel for the petitioners by virtue of the instant petition may be adjudicated upon at the stage of trial.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders. After adjudicating the entire controversy, both the Courts below found the material sufficient for framing of charge under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, including 325 IPC against the petitioners.
In view of the above, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The instant petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.2.2020 nishant/-