Allahabad High Court
Sushil vs State Of U.P. And Another on 31 May, 2023
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Neutral Citation No. 2023:AHC:122427 Reserved on 09.05.2023 Delivered on 31.05.2023 Court No. - 68 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4319 of 2023 Applicant :- Sushil Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present case has been filed assailing the order dated 13.01.2023 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Deoband, Saharanpur in Session Trial No.56 of 2021 (State Vs. Sunil and others), arising out of Case Crime No.210 of 2018, under Sections 307, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Deoband, District Saharanpur, by which the Court concerned altered the charge u/s 307 I.P.C. against the applicant, pending before Additional District and Sessions Judge, Deoband, Saharanpur.
3. Brief facts of the case are; an FIR was lodged by opposite party no.2 against three accused persons including the applicant on 04.03.2018 at 23:46 hours, under Sections 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., which came to be registered as Case Crime No.0210 of 2018.
4. As per allegations in the FIR, the informant along with his cousin namely Amit purchased a land from Sudhir Tiwari. A civil suit with respect to the same land is pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Deoband. The family members of Sudhir Tiwari were annoyed by purchase of land by the informant and his cousin, therefore, they were inimical to the informant and his family members. It has further been alleged that on 03.03.2018 at about 11 PM when the informant was returning from Rohana Sugar Mill to his residence on his tractor, a black motorcycle, in which three persons were sitting, having rifle and countrymade pistol in their hands, overtook the informant's tractor near the railway crossing and fired upon him with intention to kill him. The informant saved his life by jumping from the tractor. The aforesaid incident was witnessed by Amit and Mahipal, who were coming from behind. Seeing them, the accused persons ranaway towards the village after opening fire. The informant managed to reach home and narrated the entire story to his family members. At about 12 O'clock, Sushil, Sunil and Shubham again reached at the residence of the informant and with intention to kill, opened fire with the countrymade pistol and rifle, warning him and threatening to kill him. The second incident was witnessed by Brijesh, Munesh and few others. During investigation, statement of opposite party no.2 has been recorded, who has supported the version of the FIR. Statements of witnesses Brijesh and Munesh have also been recorded in which Munesh has stated about presence of Sushil and Shubham, having rifle and countrymade pistol in their hands at the place of incident.
5. The statements of other witnesses namely, Satish, Sat Kumar, Manoj Kumar, Subhash, Mahipal and Kapil were also recorded. The aforesaid persons have stated that due to some land dispute between the parties, they are inimical to each other and, therefore, for the purpose of pressurising the applicant, the aforesaid F.I.R. has been lodged.
6. During investigation, the Investigating Officer found the implication of Shubham incorrect, therefore, he was exonerated by the Investigating Officer.
7. On the basis of statements of interested witnesses, on 26.07.2018, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against the applicant-Sushil, under Sections 307, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. whereas under Sections 452, 504, 506 IPC against the other accused Sunil.
8. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoband, Saharanpur took cognizance of the aforesaid charge sheet by order dated 23.08.2018. The charge sheet was challenged by the applicant and co-accused Sunil by way of filing application u/s 482 No.11872 of 2019 and the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 30.03.2019 has passed the following order:
"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge-sheet no. 544 of 2018 dated 26.07.2018 as well as cognizance order dated 23.08.2018 and entire proceedings of Case No. 2570 of 2018 (State Vs. Sunil and another), under Sections- 307, 504, 506 and 452 I.P.C., Police Station- Deoband, District- Saharanpur, arising out of Case Crime No. 0210 of 2018, under Sections- 307, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Deoband, District- Saharanpur, pending before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoband, District Saharanpur.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that wholly concocted and false story is set up against the applicants on account of pending civil dispute between the parties. The allegation in the FIR describes the incident of 11:00 AM on public road whereas in the statement recorded during investigation, there is gross inconsistency as to the time and place and occurrence. At present, it also does not appear that any empties were recovered to support the allegation of the use of firearm in the incident.
4. Matter requires consideration.
5. Notice on behalf of opposite party no. 1 has been accepted by learned A.G.A.
6. Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable at an early date.
7. Opposite parties may file their counter affidavits within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
8. List thereafter.
9. Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of the aforesaid case shall remain stayed against the applicants."
9. During pendency of the aforesaid petition, in view of the direction of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and Anr. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation1, the trial Court has proceeded against the applicants and co-accused persons and non bailable warrants have been issued. The applicant was arrested and has been released on bail on 25.01.2021.
10. In the meantime, the complainant moved an application before the trial Court under Section 216 Cr.P.C. requesting to alter the charge of Section 307 IPC against the applicant. Relying upon the statements of few witnesses, the trial Court vide order dated 13.01.2023 has allowed the application framing charge under Section 307 IPC against the applicant and co-accused, hence, the present application has been filed.
11. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the earlier petition has become infructuous in view of the order passed by Court below dated 13.01.2023, therefore, by order of High Court dated 09.05.2023, the same was dismissed as not pressed.
12. Learned counsel for the applicant has challenged the order dated 13.01.2023 on following grounds:
(i) that neither the prosecution nor the de-facto complainant or anyone interested in the criminal case is entitled to file application under Section 216 Cr.P.C.
(ii) that the trial Court cannot alter the charge only on the basis of evidence adduced at the time of trial and not on the basis of material that was already on record as collected by the Investigating Officer.
13. Learned counsel for the applicant relying upon the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in case of Jasvinder Saini & Others Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)2, states that the additional evidence at the time of trial was essential for framing of additional charge or place charge already framed. Relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgement are being reproduced herein below:
"11. A plain reading of the above would show that the Court's power to alter or add any charge is unrestrained provided such addition and/or alteration is made before the judgment is pronounced. Sub-sections (2) to (5) of Section 216 deal with the procedure to be followed once the Court decides to alter or add any charge. Section 217 of the Code deals with the recall of witnesses when the charge is altered or added by the Court after commencement of the trial. There can, in the light of the above, be no doubt about the competence of the Court to add or alter a charge at any time before the judgment. The circumstances in which such addition or alteration may be made are not, however, stipulated in Section 216. It is all the same trite that the question of any such addition or alternation would generally arise either because the Court finds the charge already framed to be defective for any reason or because such addition is considered necessary after the commencement of the trial having regard to the evidence that may come before the Court."
14. Placing reliance upon judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi Vs. State of Gujarat3, he submits that while dealing with the scope of Section 216 Cr.P.C. the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that there is scope of alteration of charge during trial on the basis of materials brought on record. Section 216 of the Code appearing in Chapter XVII clearly stipulates that any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgement is pronounced. Whenever such alteration or addition is made, the same is to be read out and informed to the accused. He has pressed upon paragraph 10 of the aforesaid judgement, which is extracted below:-
"10. Therefore, if during trial the trial Court on a consideration of broad probabilities of the case based upon total effect of the evidence and documents produced is satisfied that any addition or alteration of the charge is necessary, it is free to do so, and there can be no legal bar to appropriately act as the exigencies of the case warrant or necessitate."
15. Placing reliance upon judgement of High Court of Judicature at Madras passed in State Vs. K.P. Shankar and Ors.4, he submits that on the basis of statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. when no evidence has been adduced for the offence in question at the time of trial, addition or alteration of charge is not justified. He has also emphasised that Section 216 Cr.P.C. does not contemplate that any application has to be filed by the prosecution or by any witness including the de-facto complainant.
16. In support of his submission he has pressed upon following paragraphs:
"7..........Merely on the basis of the statement of witnesses, the offence under Section 302 of IPC need not be included. In the absence of proof of corpus delicti, it is not proper on the part of the prosecution to file the petition under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. The trial Court is therefore right in dismissing such petition filed by the prosecution. There is no evidence available to include the charge under Section 302 of IPC.
The word "evidence" can mean and include the statement of the witnesses adduced before the Magistrate concerned during the course of trial and the evidence collected by the Police Officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. will not be construed as "evidence" for the purpose of filing the petition under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. The petition under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution is therefore pre mature. Even if it is shown that the respondents/accused are guilty of the offence of murder, it is only for the Trial Court to decide the same on the basis of the evidence made available against them during the course of trial. The application filed under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. by the prosecution is therefore not maintainable and it was rightly rejected by the trial Court. In this context, the learned counsel for the respondents relied on the decision of this Court in the case of (H.A. Hurul Firdhouse, represented by her power agent H.A. Abdul Jabbar vs. State, represented by Inspector of Police, W-22, All Women Police Station, Mylapore, Chennai - 2 and others) 2010 (3) Madras Weekly Notes (Crl.) 368 for the proposition that neither the prosecution nor the petitioner/accused has any right to seek for inclusion or deletion of a charge and it is for the trial Court, in its discretion, consider such inclusion of a charge. It was also held in the above said decision that as against an order passed by the trial Court, dismissing an application under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. a Criminal Revision Case is not maintainable."
"8. The learned counsel for the respondents/accused also relied on the decision rendered by this Court in the case of (Chellapandi vs. Dy. Superintendent of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Madurai District and others) (2012) 1 MLJ Criminal 246 wherein this Court has held that the power under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. to alter or amend the charges is vested with the Court on the Court being satisfied, based on the documents produced, that the charges framed has to be amended or altered. In the present case, the prosecution has filed the petition under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. to include the charge under Section 302 of IPC merely on the basis of the evidence given by the witnesses before the police officer to the effect that the victim was taken towards the sea with a view to commit the murder. In fact, in the present case, there is a long delay in giving the complaint itself for about five years and therefore also, the petition filed by the prosecution is not maintainable. In such circumstances, the learned counsel for the respondents prayed this Court to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case."
"12. The only question arise for consideration in this Criminal Revision Case is whether the prosecution has a right to file an application under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. to include the charge under Section 302 of IPC or whether such an application is maintainable."
"17. It is evident from Section 216 Cr.P.C. that alteration or amendment or addition of a charge can be done only by the Court and the trial Court alone got such power. This position is reiterated in the decision rendered by this Court in the case of (Krishnammal Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer and others) reported in 2008 Criminal Law Journal 2845 wherein in Para Nos.9 to 11, it was held as follows:-
9. From the conjoint reading of the provisions of the said Sections, it is pellucid that only the Court is having power to frame charge or alter it or add new charges at any time before judgment is pronounced. Neither the prosecution nor the person interested has right to file petition by invoking either of the said Sections so as to delete the existing charges or add new charges. In short, either the prosecution or the person interested has no right to ask the Court either to alter the existing charges or to add new charges."
"18(8). Section 216, Cr.P.C. does not contemplate any application being filed either by the prosecution or by any witness including the de facto complainant. It simply states the power of the Court to alter the charge or add any charge to the charge already framed. The stage at which such alteration or addition to charge can be made is also indicated thereon. Such an alteration or addition can be made at any time before judgment is pronounced. The Section also provides for the follow up action to be taken in the case the alteration or addition to the charges is made after considerable progress in the trial of the case.
18(9). In the light of the said provision we have to consider the order passed by the learned Trial Magistrate. A reading of the order of the learned Trial Magistrate will show that, on a proper understanding of the context of the said provision, the learned Trial Magistrate has passed the impugned order. The learned Trial Magistrate has expressed a clear opinion that the petition itself was premature one as none of the witnesses for prosecution was cross examined and five more witnesses were to be examined and that the question of framing an additional charge could be considered at a later stage in the light of the evidence to be adduced during the course of the trial. The said opinion is in tune with the intention of the legislature in enacting the said provision. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel for the Respondent, there is no defect infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court warranting interference by this Court."
17. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgement of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) passed in Nanhey Bhaiya @ Nanhan Singh And 2 Others Vs. State of U.P.5, wherein it has been stated that the power vested in the Court is exclusive to the Court and there is no right in any party to seek for such addition or alteration by filing any application as a matter of right.
18. Lastly, he has relied upon judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in P. Kartikalakshmi vs. Sri Ganesh and another6, while submitting that the application moved by the informant or prosecution is not maintainable and has emphasised on Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8, which are as under:
"6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, we find force in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 1. Section 216 CrPC empowers the Court to alter or add any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. It is now well settled that the power vested in the Court is exclusive to the Court and there is no right in any party to seek for such addition or alteration by filing any application as a matter of right. It may be that if there was an omission in the framing of the charge and if it comes to the knowledge of the Court trying the offence, the power is always vested in the Court, as provided under Section 216 CrPC to either alter or add the charge and that such power is available with the Court at any time before the judgment is pronounced. It is an enabling provision for the Court to exercise its power under certain contingencies which comes to its notice or brought to its notice. In such a situation, if it comes to the knowledge of the Court that a necessity has arisen for the charge to be altered or added, it may do so on its own and no order need to be passed for that purpose. After such alteration or addition when the final decision is rendered, it will be open for the parties to work out their remedies in accordance with law.
7. We were taken through Section 221 and 222 CrPC in this context. In the light of the facts involved in this case, we are only concerned with Section 216 CrPC. We, therefore, do not propose to examine the implications of the other provisions to the case on hand. We wish to confine ourselves to the invocation of Section 216 and rest with that. In the light of our conclusion that the power of invocation of Section 216 CrPC is exclusively confined with the Court as an enabling provision for the purpose of alteration or addition of any charge at any time before pronouncement of the judgment, we make it clear that no party, neither de facto complainant nor the accused or for that matter the prosecution has any vested right to seek any addition or alteration of charge, because it is not provided under Section 216 CrPC. If such a course to be adopted by the parties is allowed, then it will be well-nigh impossible for the criminal court to conclude its proceedings and the concept of speedy trial will get jeopardised.
8. In such circumstances, when the application preferred by the appellant itself before the trial court was not maintainable, it was not incumbent upon the trial court to pass an order under Section 216 CrPC. Therefore, there was no question of the said order being revisable under Section 397 CrPC. The whole proceeding, initiated at the instance of the appellant, was not maintainable. Inasmuch as the legal issue had to be necessarily set right, we are obliged to clarify the law as is available under Section 216 CrPC. To that extent, having clarified the legal position, we make it clear that the whole proceedings initiated at the instance of the appellant was thoroughly misconceived and vitiated in law and ought not to have been entertained by the trial court. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 1, such a course adopted by the appellant and entertained by the court below has unnecessarily provided scope for protraction of the proceedings which ought not to have been allowed by the court below."
19. As the power to alter or add any charge is exclusive to the Court, therefore, the application moved by informant is not maintainable, as such course is adopted for protraction of proceeding which ought not to have been allowed by the Court below, thus, the order dated 13.01.2023 is liable to be quashed.
20. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that there is no prohibition under Section 216 Cr.P.C. to alter or add a charge prior to recording of evidence. If the Court is moved for the said purpose and it is satisfied, the charge framed by it deserves to be altered and additional charge is required to be added. He further contends that when the Magistrate has jurisdiction to rectify the mistake by adding or altering charge, he can hear the counsel for the parties and do it suo moto and any application either by the public prosecutor or by the informant is only to bring the said facts to his notice and in any case that would not invalidate the order.
21. He submits that the duty of the Court while adding or altering charge has been summarised in the judgement of Anant Prakash Sinha Alias Anant Sinha Vs. State of Haryana And Another7, wherein the materials which have to be considered, the adequacy of material on record, and stages up to which such addition or alteration of charge can be done as also with the powers of the Court to entertain an application moved by the informant, complainant or any witness, has been elaborated. In view of above, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order, therefore, relief as prayed, cannot be granted.
22. Before coming to the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to extract Section 216 Cr.P.C., which is as follows:-
"216. Court may alter charge.-- (1) Any court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced.
(2) Every such alteration or addition shall be read and explained to the accused.
(3) If the alteration or addition to a charge is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is not likely, in the opinion of the court, to prejudice the accused in his defence or the prosecutor in the conduct of the case, the court may, in its discretion, after such alteration or addition has been made, proceed with the trial as if the altered or added charge had been the original charge.
(4) If the alteration or addition is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is likely, in the opinion of the court, to prejudice the accused or the prosecutor as aforesaid, the court may either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial for such period as may be necessary. (5) If the offence stated in the altered or added charge is one for the prosecution of which previous sanction is necessary, the case shall not be proceeded with until such sanction is obtained, unless sanction has been already obtained for a prosecution on the same facts as those on which the altered or added charge is founded."
23. All that the Court meant to say was that in a case where a charge alleging dowry death is framed, a charge under Section 302 IPC can also be framed if the evidence otherwise permits.
24. Thus, in the case of Jasvinder Saini (Supra), the Court opined that the appearances on evidence at the trial Court was not essential for framing of additional charge or altering the charge already framed, though it may be one of the grounds to do so.
25. It would be appropriate to extract paragraph 11 of the aforesaid judgement:
"11. A plain reading of the above would show that the Court's power to alter or add any charge is unrestrained provided such addition and/or alteration is made before the judgment is pronounced. Sub-sections (2) to (5) of Section 216 deal with the procedure to be followed once the Court decides to alter or add any charge. Section 217 of the Code deals with the recall of witnesses when the charge is altered or added by the Court after commencement of the trial. There can, in the light of the above, be no doubt about the competence of the Court to add or alter a charge at any time before the judgment. The circumstances in which such addition or alteration may be made are not, however, stipulated in Section 216. It is all the same trite that the question of any such addition or alternation would generally arise either because the Court finds the charge already framed to be defective for any reason or because such addition is considered necessary after the commencement of the trial having regard to the evidence that may come before the Court."
26. While interpreting powers of Court under Section 216 Cr.P.C. to alter or add any charge, the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Karimullah Osan Khan8, has tried to explain the expression.
"at any time", "before judgement is pronounced", and has also dealt with the material/basis on which charge(s) may be added, altered after conclusion of the trial.
27. Relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgement are reproduced herein below:-
"17. Section 216 CrPC gives considerable powers to the Trial Court, that is, even after the completion of evidence, arguments heard and the judgment reserved, it can alter and add any charge, subject to the conditions mentioned therein. The expressions "at any time" and before the "judgment is pronounced" would indicate that the power is very wide and can be exercised, in appropriate cases, in the interest of justice, but at the same time, the Courts should also see that its orders would not cause any prejudice to the accused.
18. Section 216 CrPC confers jurisdiction on all Courts, including the designated Courts, to alter or add to any charge framed earlier, at any time before the judgment is pronounced and Sub-Sections (2) to (5) prescribe the procedure which has to be followed after that addition or alteration. Needless to say, the Courts can exercise the power of addition or modification of charges under Section 216 CrPC, only when there exists some material before the Court, which has some connection or link with the charges sought to be amended, added or modified. In other words, alteration or addition of a charge must be for an offence made out by the evidence recorded during the course of trial before the Court. (See Harihar Chakravarty v. State of West Bengal AIR 1954 SC 266. Merely because the charges are altered after conclusion of the trial, that itself will not lead to the conclusion that it has resulted in prejudice to the accused because sufficient safeguards have been built in in Section 216 CrPC and other related provisions."
28. The Apex Court in a full bench decision in the case of Harihar Chakravarty Vs. State of West Bengal9, has gone to the extent to hold that the direction to alter the charge so as to include an offence for which the appellant was not originally charged, could only be done if the trial Court itself had taken action under Section 227 Cr.P.C. before it pronounced judgement. It could only have done so if there were materials before it either in the complaint or in the evidence to justify such action.
29. Thus, it can be interpreted in such a manner that the concerned Court has the power to alter or modify any charge prior to pronouncement of the judgement, in case, there is material before it. Irrespective of the fact as to whether it is the material as collected by the Investigating Officer, which has been placed before the trial Court after submission of the charge sheet or when the Court concerned is proceeded with the trial, thus collecting evidence at the time of trial.
30. Thus the Court in the aforesaid case opined that the trial Court could issue a direction for alteration of the charge if there were materials before it in the complaint or any evidence to justify such action. The sum and substance as understood is that if there are allegations in the complaint, petition or for that matter in FIR or accompanying material, the Court can alter the charge.
31. This Court is of the opinion that the powers under Section 216 Cr.P.C. regarding alteration or addition of charge is for an offence made out by the evidence recorded during course of trial before the Court, which does not necessary mean that the alteration can be done only in case where evidence is adduced. Section 216 Cr.P.C., as is evincible does not lay down that the Court cannot alter the charge solely because it has framed the charge. The Court finds that the question of any such addition or alteration generally arises either because the charge already framed is defective for any reason or because such addition is considered necessary after the commencement of the trial having regard to the evidence that may come before the Court. In other words, the Court can change or alter the charge if there is defect or something is left out. The test is, it must be founded on the material available on record. It can be on the basis of complaint or the FIR or accompanying documents or material brought on record, during the course of trial and can also be done at any time before pronouncement of the judgement. Thus, as held in case of Anant Prakash Sinha @ Anant Sinha (Supra), charge can be framed on the basis of evidence on record and it is not necessary to adduce new evidence for altering or modifying the charge.
32. It would be appropriate to quote paragraph 18, which is as follows:
"18.From the aforesaid, it is graphic that the court can change or alter the charge if there is defect or something is left out. The test is, it must be founded on the material available on record. It can be on the basis of the complaint or the FIR or accompanying documents or the material brought on record during the course of trial. It can also be done at any time before pronouncement of judgment. It is not necessary to advert to each and every circumstance. Suffice it to say, if the court has not framed a charge despite the material on record, it has the jurisdiction to add a charge. Similarly, it has the authority to alter the charge. The principle that has to be kept in mind is that the charge so framed by the Magistrate is in accord with the materials produced before him or if subsequent evidence comes on record. It is not to be understood that unless evidence has been let in, charges already framed cannot be altered, for that is not the purport of Section 216 CrPC."
33. As regards the submission that the learned Magistrate could not have entertained the application preferred by the informant as the same is not maintainable in the view of the provisions of Section 216 Cr.P.C. This Court feels that the learned Magistrate could have done it suo moto but the application was only a way to bring to the notice of the Court concerned about the defect in framing of the charge, therefore, the Court finds no fault in case such an application has been entertained in the present facts of the case wherein from statements of witnesses, presence of Sushil and Shubham having rifle and country made pistol in their hands, was proved at the place of incident, thus, there was ample material to entertain the application as moved by the informant/complainant to alter the charge of Section 307 IPC against the applicant Sushil.
34. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any error in the order impugned, accordingly the application u/s 482 is dismissed.
35. The Court below is directed to proceed in accordance with law.
Order Date:-31.5.2023 Rahul Goswami (Justice Manju Rani Chauhan)