Allahabad High Court
Vimlesh Kumar Mishra @ Tote vs State Of U.P. & Another on 6 February, 2020
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 14 Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 602 of 2020 Applicant :- Vimlesh Kumar Mishra @ Tote Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Dubey,Akanksha Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents.
The instant petition has been filed for quashing order dated 9.1.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court-13, Pratapgarh in Sessions Trial No.457 of 2003 (State vs. Neelu @ Shachindra & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 106 of 2000 under Section 307 I.P.C., P.S. Aspur Devsara.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the opposite party no.2 had lodged F.I.R. dated 6.9.2000, which was registered as Case Crime No. 106 of 2000 under Section 307 I.P.C. in Police Station Aspur Devsara, District Pratapgarh, alleging therein that the petitioner and one Neelu have fired upon Karunesh Chandra Upadhyay by which he sustained a serious injury. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that in cross-case of the same incident, an F.I.R. was lodged bearing as Case Crime No. 106A of 2000 under Sections 147, 452, 323, 235, 504, 506 I.P.C, P.S. Ashpur Devsara. He submits that the police has investigated Case Crime No. 106 of 2000 and filed charge-sheet against the accused persons including the petitioner. After committal, the court concerned has taken cognizance in the matter as Session Trial No. 457 of 2003. In the cross-case, the police submitted final report bearing no. 22 of 2000 before the III Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Pratapgarh, on which protest application was filed. Vide order dated 4.2.2005, final report submitted by the police was rejected and the court concerned summoned the accused namely Varunesh Upadhayay, Karunesh, Vimlesh, Untmesh, Bhupesh, Amit and Mahendra Singh under Sections 147, 452, 323, 235, 504, 506 I.P.C. The case was registered as Criminal Case No. 441 of 2009. It is submitted that the Sessions Trial No. 457 of 2003 was commenced before the Sessions Court but Criminal Case No. 441 of 2009 arising out of Case Crime No. 106A of 2000 was not commenced before the Sessions Court in spite of the fact that the incident in both the F.I.Rs. are common and are from the cross F.I.Rs. registered.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that since both the cases are related to the common incident, therefore, it is proper to try and decide them by a common Court. He has relied upon paras 6 to 9 of a judgment passed by Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in Birbal Yadav vs. State of U.P. reported in 2010 (68) ACC 929 to strengthen his argument.
Learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and submitted that impugned order dated 9.1.2020 has been passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court no. 13, Pratapgarh after considering the entirety of the matter. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the trial has already been concluded in the Sessions Trial No. 457 of 2003. He has submitted that the instant petition filed by the petitioner is nothing but gross misuse of law and only for the purpose of delaying the trial, which has already been concluded and listed for final argument. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner herein was not co-operating in the trial and not arguing the matter. Learned court below had given last opportunity of hearing by fixing the date 21.1.2020.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused order dated 9.1.2020.
Since, the trial has already been concluded in Session Trial No. 457 of 2003 and only the matter was listed for final hearing before the court concerned, the prayer made in the instant petition at this stage cannot be entertained as the trial in the said-case has already been concluded and fixed for the final hearing.
In view of the above, I do not find any reason or good ground for entertaining the prayer by way of invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C..
Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.2.2020 Aditya