Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2845 (ALL)

Rakesh Kumar v. State Of U. P.

2010-09-16

RAJ MANI CHAUHAN

body2010
JUDGMENT: Raj Mani Chauhan, J . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. as well as perused the documents available on record. 2. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Code) has been filed by the accused petitioner for quashing the criminal proceeding of Sessions Trial No. 568 of 2009, arising out of case crime no. 539 of 2008, under Sections 308, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kachauna, district Hardoi, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. No3, Hardoi and also for quashing the impugned order dated 4.8.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. No.3, Hardoi whereby he has framed the charges against the accused petitioner. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the accused petitioner is that the accused petitioner had been summoned by the trial court under Section 319 of the Code. He after putting his appearance, moved an application that on the basis of injury sustained by the injured, no offence under Section 308 I.P.C. is made out, therefore, no charge under Section 308 I.P.C. be framed against him. The learned trial court rejected his application with the observation that the court had already framed charges against co-accused under Section 308 I.P.C. along with other sections who were already being? tried, therefore, it will be proper to frame charges under Section 308 I.P.C. against the accused petitioner too. Consequently, he framed charges against him. 4. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner submit that from a perusal of the injury report of the injured, it appears that he had sustained injury at the top of the head but from a perusal of x-ray examination report, no bony lesion was seen; rather fracture was found on his shoulder. Therefore, it was hardly a case of under Section 325 I.P.C. and not under Section 308 I.P.C. The impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejecting his application for not framing charge under Section 308 I.P.C. is liable to be quashed. 5. Learned A.G.A. supported the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and argued that since the trial court had already framed the charge against the co-accused under Section 308 I.P.C.? too and they? had? already? 5. Learned A.G.A. supported the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and argued that since the trial court had already framed the charge against the co-accused under Section 308 I.P.C.? too and they? had? already? been tried, therefore, the trial court in all propriety thought it proper to frame charge under Section 308 I.P.C. too against the accused petitioner along with other sections which will be subject to the final decision of the trial court as to whether the offence under Section 308 I.P.C. is made out or not. 6. Considered the submission of the learned counsel for the accused petitioner and learned A.G.A. 7. From a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the trial court had? already framed the charges against the co-accused under Section 308 I.P.C., along with other sections, therefore, he has framed charges against the accused petitioner too in the same section. Since the accused petitioner is? being tried along with co-accused, therefore, the trial court has framed charges against the accused petitioner. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order which will be subject to the final decision of the trial court. The petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.