Allahabad High Court
Ramesh Chandra Srivastava vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 9 January, 2020
Author: Rajeev Singh
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 11 Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 93 of 2020 Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Srivastava Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Kumar Singh,Sanjay Singh Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 11.09.2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri in S.T. No.545 of 2015 arising out of Crime No.271 of 2015, under Section 302 and 201 I.P.C., Police Station Hyderabad, District Kheri.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that deceased was the driver of the applicant who was operating his Tata Indica U.P.31 Z 8500. The aforesaid vehicle was running on the booking and on the date of incident, the deceased informed to the applicant that he is going to Gola along with one party, but he did not come back. Thereafter, on the next date, the Police informed to the applicant that his vehicle is found in the jurisdiction of Police Station Kheri, then the applicant brought his vehicle. On 25.06.2015 in the newspaper, a news was published along with photograph of one dead body, the same was identified by the informant and applicant, as his driver. On 27.06.2015, the FIR was lodged by the informant against the applicant with the allegation that on 23.06.2015 in the morning, husband of the informant was called by the applicant and informed that he was going to Gola. In the afternoon, she made a call to her husband, he informed that he is going along with the applicant to Gola. After investigation, the name of applicant was deleted from the charge-sheet and charge-sheet was filed against three persons namely Amit Kumar, Pradeep Kumar and Ajeet @ Chotu and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and it was registered as S.T No.545 of 2015 under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. (State Vs. Amit Kumar and others) and after recording the statement of PW-1, the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by the prosecution and the applicant was summoned.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is no clenching evidence of applicant in the statement of PW-1 but the court below has wrongly summoned the applicant. He further submitted that court below has to consider the relevant documents prepared by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, at the time of passing the summoning order. He also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Brijendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan in Criminal Appeal No.763 of 2017.
Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of applicant and submitted that in case the story of the applicant is accepted, then he has not made any report of missing of his driver and his vehicle, as he kept mum. He further submitted that during the course of investigation, the statement of informant was recorded in which she categorically stated that in the morning her husband was called by the applicant and thereafter in the afternoon she made a call to her husband and he informed that he is along with the applicant and going to Gola and this fact was ignored by the Investigating Officer and again she stated before the trial court that she made a call in the afternoon and her husband informed that he is with the applicant. Therefore, the application (u/s 482 Cr.P.C.) is liable to the dismissed and there is no illegality in the order passed by the court below and applicant may appear before the trial court and apprise his submission, at appropriate stage.
Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and going through the statement of informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and before the trial court, it is evident that she categorically stated that she made a call to her husband and again in the morning and also in the afternoon, he informed that he is with the applicant and they are going to Gola. After going through the decision cited by the applicant in the case of Brijendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, the fact of the case relied by the applicant is not applicable in the present case. As it is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92, that the trial court is competent to exercise his power on the basis of such statement recorded before it, in the examination-in-chief.
In the present case, in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as statement recorded before the trial court, the informant has categorically stated that her husband was called by the applicant and in the afternoon she made a call to her husband and who informed that he was along with the applicant. Thus, there is no illegality in the order passed by the court below.
In view of above, the application (u/s 482 Cr.P.C.) is dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.1.2020 Amit/-