Allahabad High Court
Amit Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 15 September, 2022
Author: Vivek Kumar Birla
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 42 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19415 of 2022 Applicant :- Amit Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Sisodia,Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard Sri Rajiv Sisodia, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.appearing for the State respondents.
Present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 10.5.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Shamli in Case No. 2695 of 2018 (State vs. Arshad Jamal and others), under Sections 302, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Thana Bhawan, District Shamli.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the impugned order wholly illegal in nature imasmuch as the CCTV footage does not in categorical terms identify the accused Shakti Singh and he has been identified on the basis of figure and no clear CCTV footage was available.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that no interference is warranted in the present case inasmuch as the aforesaid order has been passed after considering the order of this Court dated 19.1.2021 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 1367 of 2021 (Amit Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others). She further submitted that the applicant has remedy by way of filing complaint, in case, he is still not satisfied with the outcome of the order.
For convenience, the order dated 19.1.2021 is quoted as under:-
"The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the Judgement and o rder dated 31.05.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, District Muzaffar Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 53 of 2017 (Arshad Jamal and others Vs. State of U.P. and another) whereby revision filed by respondent nos. 2 to 4 has been allowed by setting aside the summoning order dated 01.02.2017.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the material on record.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has lodged a F.I.R. against the respondent nos. 2 to 4 but the police did not conduct the investigation property and final report was submitted. It was further submitted that protest petition was filed by the applicant against the final report and after hearing, the respondent nos. 2 to 4 were summoned for offences under Sections 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. vide order dated 01.02.2017. It was next submitted that the respondent nos. 2 to 4 preferred a criminal revision against the order dated 01.02.2017, which was allowed by the Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar vide impugned order dated 31.05.2017 and the matter was remanded to the concerned Magistrate with an observation that fresh order be passed on the protest petition by determining the validity and value of C.C.T.V. footage in respect of accused-respondent no.4 Shakti Singh. It was submitted that learned Sessions Judge has exceeded its jurisdiction by entering into evidence. It was further argued that meanwhile, Sessions Division of District Shamli was created and the matter was to be considered by the concerned Magistrate Court of District Shamli. Learned counsel further argued that in compliance of order dated 31.05.2017, no order has been passed by concerned Magistrate and that file of the case was not traceable. In this regard, learned counsel has also referred an application filed by the application before District Judge, Shamli.
Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the impugned order has been passed on 31.05.2017 and thus instant application has been preferred after two and a half years and no proper explanation for delay in filing the revision has been shown and therefore, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed on the ground of undue delay and laches. It was further argued that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order.
At the outset, it may be mentioned that no satisfactory explanation has been shown regarding delay of two and half years in filing the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Though, no specific period of limitation has been prescribed for filing a petition or application under Section 482 Cr.P.C but it is well settled that such a petition must be filed within a reasonable time period. Thus, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. suffers from vice of delay and laches. Further, perusal of record shows that revisional Court has set aside the impugned order by observing that police have seized C.C.T.V. footage in respect of respondent no.4 Shakti Singh and that C.C.T.V. footage is part of investigation and police has submitted final report on that basis, thus the Magistrate must pass a fresh order after considering the value of C.C.T.V. footage.As police have submitted final report mainly on the ground of C.C.T.V. footage, thus it cannot be said that above stated observations of the learned Session Judge, Muzaffar Nagar are unwarranted or undesirable or the Court has exceeded its jurisdiction. In view of aforesaid, it cannot be said that the impugned order suffers from any patent error or illegality or there has been abuse of process of Court or miscarriage of justice.
The prayer for quashing the order impugned is refused.
However, so far as the contention of learned counsel for the applicant is concerned that no order has been passed by concerned Magistrate in compliance of the order dated 31.05.2017, it is directed that the concerned Court below shall pass an appropriate order on the protest petition in accordance with law, if yet no order has been passed, preferably within a period of three months from the date of a production of a certified copy of the order before it.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant application is accordingly, disposed of."
The aforesaid order has been taken note of by the trial court particularly the observations made in the last paragraph of the second page, which continued on the next page and has passed the final order.
In the impugned order the computer forensic report has also been considered by clearly recording that all hardware are running normally and it has been observed that there is no editing or tampering.
In such view of the matter, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the order impugned herein.
Present application is accordingly rejected.
However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the remedy as may be available to him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 15.9.2022 Lalit Shukla