Allahabad High Court
Rajendra Yadav @ Rajendra vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 September, 2024
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:146316 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17855 of 2024 Applicant :- Rajendra Yadav @ Rajendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pavan Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Pavan Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Perused the record.
3. Applicant-Rajendra Yadav @ Rajendra, who is a charge sheeted accused, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:
" It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and quash the order dated 07.05.2024 passed by Sessions Judge, Ballia in Criminal Revision No. 60 of 2024 (Rajendra Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others), arising out of judgment and order dated 15.03.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia issuing N.B.W. against the applicant in Case No. 5772 of 2021 (State Versus Devendra alias Prabhu and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 9 of 2021, under Sections 323, 307, 324, 504, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station Phephana, District Ballia pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Ballia, and further to pleased to discharge the applicant from charges by allowing discharge application, otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury this Hon'ble Court.
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceedings of the Case No. 5772 of 2021 (State Versus Devendra alias Prabhu and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 9 of 2021, under Sections 323, 307, 324, 504, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station Phephana, District Ballia pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Ballia during the pendency of the present application before this Hon'ble Court. "
4. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 22.01.2021, a delayed F.I.R. dated 23.01.2021 was lodged by first informant/opposite party-2, Ramesh Yadav and was registered as Case Crime No.0009 of 2021 under Sections 307, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Phephana, District Ballia. In the aforesaid F.I.R. four persons namely Devendra @ Prabhu, Atul, Pawan and Rajendra have been nominated as named accused.
5. The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R. is to the effect that named accused assaulted the first informant and his companion. One of the named accused namely Rajendra exhorted that the first informant and his other family members be put to death. On this exhortation, Devendra fired a shot from the rifle.
6. After aforementioned F.I.R. was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of aforementioned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. On the basis of material collected by him during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that offence complained of is fully established. He accordingly submitted the police report (charge sheet) dated 01.07.2021 whereby named accused Devendra @ Prabhu, Atul, Pawan and Rajendra have been charge sheeted under Sections 307, 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C.
7. Upon submission of aforementioned police report, cognizance was taken upon same by concerned Magistrate i.e. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. vide cognizance taking order/summoning order dated 26.08.2021 passed in consequential Case No. 5772 of 2021 (State Vs. Devendra @ Prabhu and others) under Sections 323, 307, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station-Phephana, District Ballia,
8. During the pendency of aforementioned criminal case one of the charge sheeted accused Rajendra Yadav i.e. applicant herein, filed a discharge Application dated 30.04.2022 under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking his discharge in aforementioned criminal case, in which, 15.03.2024 was the next date fixed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia. On the aforesaid date, an exemption application was filed on behalf of charge sheeted accused including applicant. However, no one appeared on behalf of applicant or other charge sheeted accused to press the Exemption Application on 15.03.2024. As no one appeared on behalf of charge sheeted accused including present applicant to press aforementioned exemption application, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia vide order dated 15.03.2024 not only rejected the aforesaid exemption application but also issued non-bailable warrants against charge sheeted accused including applicant.
9. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 15.03.2024, applicant filed a Criminal Revision before the Sessions Judge, Ballia. The same was registered as Criminal Revision No. 60 of 2024 (Rajendra Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others). The Sessions Judge, Ballia vide order dated 07.05.2024 rejected the aforesaid criminal revision filed by applicant primarily on the ground of maintainability as the same was directed against an interlocutory order.
10 Thus feeling aggrieved by the above order dated 15.03.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia and the order dated 07.05.2024 passed by Sessions Judge, Ballia, applicant has now approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
11. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection by submitting that an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is triable by the Court of Sessions. Therefore, discharge application filed by applicant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia before committal of the case to the Court of Sessions was not maintainable. Furthermore, since no one appeared on behalf of applicant to press the exemption application filed on behalf of charge sheeted accused including applicant, no illegality was committed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia in passing the impugned order dated 15.03.2024. No illegality can be said to have been committed by Sessions Judge, Ballia in rejecting the Criminal Revision filed by applicant in challenge to the order dated 15.03.2024 as the order dated 15.03.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia is an interlocutory order. Admittedly, no revision lies against an interlocutory order. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. contends that present application is liable to be dismissed.
12. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that preliminary objection raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application is not only borne out from the record but further the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicants. In view of above, no good ground exists to entertain the present application.
14. As a result, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.
15. It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.9.2024 YK