Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1933 (ALL)

ARVIND SHUKLA v. STATE OF U P

2004-09-24

V.K.CHATURVEDI

body2004
Y. K. CHATURVEDI, J. Arvind Shukla has preferred this revision against the order dated 17-11-2004 passed by Fast Track Court III, Kanpur Nagar in S. T. No. 660 of 2003, whereby the Court rejected prayer of the revisionist for stay of the proceedings. 2. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar and Sri Santosh Dwivedi for the revisionist and learned A. G. A. 3. Perused the materials on record including the impugned order. 4. After lodging a F. I. R. against him under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act, P. S. Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur Nagar, the revisionist filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2075 of 2002 before this Court for staying his arrest, and this Court passed an order to the effect that investigation in the matter may go on but the revisionist shall not be arrested. While staying arrest of the revisionist, this Court had never stopped investigation in the case and also not given any direction that no charge-sheet be filed in the case till pendency of the writ petition before this Court. After submission of the charge- sheet, the revisionist was arrested and he was released on bail by this Court. 5. Contention of the revisionist here is that since writ petition against the F. I. R. is pending before this Court, in view of decision of the larger Bench in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2154 of 1995, Smt. Amarawati & Anr. v. State of U. P. , decided on 15-10-2004 [since reported in 2004 (2) JIC 630 (All) (FB)], the revisionist accused be acquitted under Section 232, Cr. P. C. 6. The trial Court considering submissions made by the revisionist there in its order has observed that after closing evidence by the prosecution and recording statement of the accused revisionist under Section 313, Cr. P. C. , the revisionist earlier also moved an application under Section 232, Cr. P. C. which was decided earlier by a detailed order, against which he filed Writ Petition No. 2400/2004 before this Court but did not file any interim order if granted by this Court. P. C. , the revisionist earlier also moved an application under Section 232, Cr. P. C. which was decided earlier by a detailed order, against which he filed Writ Petition No. 2400/2004 before this Court but did not file any interim order if granted by this Court. Earlier to it, one more writ petition was filed by the revisionist before this Court which is stated to be pending and on the basis of pendency of the same, an application was moved by the revisionist before the trial Court that proceedings be stayed, and that application was rejected on 22-9-04 by a detailed order. Against this order, the revisionist again filed a writ petition before this Court but no interim order was granted. Lastly, on 2-11-2004, the revisionist again moved an application before the trial Court that proceedings of the trial be stayed as the matter is pending before this Court. 7. Impugned order shows that this Court neither in the writ petition for stay of arrest nor any other subsequent writ petition, revision or proceedings, ever stayed further proceedings pending before the trial Court. The trial Court in the absence of any specific interim order of this Court, has rightly rejected the application on the ground that the revisionist is not allowing the Court to get the case decided on one pretext or the other and his entire efforts are to linger on the proceedings, while all prosecution witnesses have already been examined. 8. Regarding the submission that in view of decision of the larger Bench of this Court (supra), the trial be stayed, suffice it to say that this point was never referred before the larger Bench. Only three points were referred for consideration before the larger Bench, which are as under: (1) Whether arrest of an accused is must if cognizable offence is disclosed in the F. I. R. or in the criminal complaint? (2) Whether High Court can direct subordinate Court to decide the bail application on the same day it is filed ? and, (3) Whether the case of Dr. Vinod Narain v. State of U. P. , Writ Petition No. 3643 of 1992, reported in 1995 (1) JIC 433 (All) : 1995 (32) ACC 375, has been correctly decided by Five Judges Full Bench of this Court? and, (3) Whether the case of Dr. Vinod Narain v. State of U. P. , Writ Petition No. 3643 of 1992, reported in 1995 (1) JIC 433 (All) : 1995 (32) ACC 375, has been correctly decided by Five Judges Full Bench of this Court? These were precisely the points referred and the larger Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 15- 10-2004 replied all three questions. There is nothing in the larger Bench decision which may help the revisionist applicant in any manner, consequently this contention also has no force. In view of the above discussion, this revision has no force and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. .