Allahabad High Court
Braham Singh & Another vs State Of U.P. & Another on 3 February, 2010
Author: Arvind Kumar Tripathi
Bench: Arvind Kumar Tripathi
Court No. - 52 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 434 of 2010 Petitioner :- Braham Singh & Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another Petitioner Counsel :- B. Malik,Amit Mallik Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the record.
The present criminal revision has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 23.1.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge F.T.C. No.2, Muzaffarnagar in Sessions Trial No.1363 of 2007, under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 are real brothers. There is family dispute, in respect which civil proceeding is already pending and in that proceeding they have settled the dispute and entered into compromise. In the present case though the applicants were named in the first information report, however, on the basis of material collected during investigation no offence was found against them. Hence the charge sheet was not submitted against them. However, after the statement of PW1 informant, an application was moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the applicants to face the trial along with other accused already charge sheeted. He submitted that in view of the fact and considering the injury report it appears that there was only one fire and the injuries are simple in nature. PW1 is not injured witness, hence in view of the fact the summoning order is liable to be set aside.
The aforesaid prayer was strongly opposed by learned AGA, Mr. A.K. Bhatt. He contended that there is clear allegation by PW1 in his statement against applicants that they fired at injured causing firearm injuries. PW1 is eye- witness hence there is no illegality in the summoning order because in view of the facts and in view of the evidence there was possibility of conviction.
In view of the fact of this case it is clear from perusal of statement of PW1 that there is identical allegation against those co-accused who have already been charge sheeted as well as against the applicants. There are five firearm injuries, In view of the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the satisfaction of the trial Court regarding possibility of conviction and after such satisfaction summoning of the applicants is illegal. After satisfaction the trial Court has summoned the accused to face the trial hence no interference is required at this stage. If the parties had entered into compromise, the applicants would have opportunity to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law. At this stage, since there is identical allegation against the applicants as well as against those co-accused who are already facing trial, hence I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned summoning order dated 23.1.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge F.T.C. No.2, Muzaffarnagar in Sessions Trial No.1363 of 2007 under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly the present revision is hereby rejected.
However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and move bail application within thirty days from today, the same shall be considered and disposed off as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law in view of the Full Court Judgement of this Court in case of Amrawati Vs. State of U.P. 2005 Cr.L.J.755 uphld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., 2009(4) SCC 437.
Order Date :- 3.2.2010 piyush