Allahabad High Court
Lalloo @ Nahar Singh Son Of Sri Charan ... vs The State Of U.P. And Ram Shankar Yadav ... on 13 February, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006CRILJ1790
Author: Vinod Prasad
Bench: Vinod Prasad
JUDGMENT Vinod Prasad, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A
2. The applicant is aggrieved by the charge framed under Section 120B I.P.C. He has filed the photo-copy as well as certified copy of the said charge dated 21.1.2006,
3. Learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for the applicant agreed that this application be disposed off finally and in this view of the matter It is being considered finally. From the perusal of the said charge, it is amply clear that the applicant has not been charged any substantive offence. The only charge framed against him is under Section 120B I.P.C. The charge under Section 120B I.P.C. simplicitor cannot be framed against anybody, as he cannot be said to have conspired for an offence, which is not known.
4. Under the scheme of the code of criminal procedure, the charge is to be framed on the basis of the evidence contained in the case diary. Section 120B is an offence of conspiracy. The said section cannot be applied simplicitor unless and until some offence is disclosed. There cannot be any conspiracy without any offence. Section 120B has to be appended with a primary offence. For the understanding Section 120B is quoted herein below:
Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this code for punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.
5. Thus there cannot be any charge of conspiracy against any accused without the aid of a substantiate offence. Thus, the charge, which has been framed against the applicant, is against the provisions of law.
6. Consequently, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.
7. The charge dated 21.11.06 framed by Additional Sessions Judge, court No. 11 Aligarh in S.T. No. 22 of 2006 State v. Vivek @ Vikki and Ors. under Section 120B I.P.C. P.S. Quarsi District Aligarh against applicant is quashed.
8. The matter is remanded back to the trial court to frame a fresh charge, if it is made out against the applicant.
9. This application is thus allowed.