Allahabad High Court
Gulab Kha And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 March, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 89 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1100 of 2023 Revisionist :- Gulab Kha And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Hari Shankar,Shiv Vilas Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA for the State.
This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 03.01.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate second Chitrakoot in complaint case no.602018 of 2011 (Nuruddin vs. Gulab Khan and ors). By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has proceeded to frame additional charge U/s 452 IPC against the revisionist accused.
With regard to the incident dated 31.10.2013 at about 10:30 pm. An NCR no.240 of 2007 U/s 323, 504 & 506 IPC was registered against the revisionist Gulab Khan, Mohd. Ahmad Khan, Gufran alias Raju and Aslam Khan. Thereafter the complainant moved an application U/s 155 (2) Cr.P.C. which was treated as a complaint. The complainant produced himself U/s 200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses U/s 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 23.05.2008 summoned the accused persons for offence U/s 323, 504 & 506 IPC. Thereafter the evidence U/s 244 Cr.P.C. was recorded Nuruddin (P.W.-1) and Kamruddin (P.W.-2) were examined. The learned Magistrate framed charges U/s 323, 504 & 506 IPC on 01.04.2017. Thereafter an application dated 31.08.2017 was moved by the complainant alleging therein that charges U/s 323, 504, 506 IPC has been framed against the accused. No charge U/s 452 IPC has been framed. An application was also moved on 17.01.2013 in this respect. A revision was preferred by the accused and the revisional court has provided an opportunity for cross-examination U/s 244 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, after cross examination, charges were framed on 01.04.2017 U/s 323, 504, 506 IPC but no charge U/s 452 IPC has been framed while it has come in the evidence that the accused persons after committing house tress-pass, assaulted the complainant. On the aforesaid ground prayer was made to frame additional charge U/s 452 IPC. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order has allowed this application.
Learned counsel for the revisionists contended that charges were framed against the revisionist accused way back on 01.04.2017 for offence U/s 323, 504 & 506 IPC thereafter no additional evidence has come on the record but the learned trial court without taking any additional evidence has allowed the application of the complainant to frame additional charge U/s 452 IPC. Hence the impugned order is illegal.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer.
The perusal of the record, reveals that in the application filed by the complainant U/s 155 (2) Cr.P.C., it is alleged that the accused persons entered into the house of the complainant and assaulted him. This fact has been reiterated by the complainant and the witnesses in their statements U/s 200, 202 Cr.P.C. and further in section 244 Cr.P.C. So from the evidence on record, it is established that there are allegations of committing house trespass and assault. Under Section 216 Cr.P.C. the court is empowered to alter the charge at any stage. There is sufficient material on record on the basis of which a prima-facie case U/s 452 IPC is made out. Hence there is no illegality in the impugned order.
Accordingly, the revision is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.3.2023 C. MANI