Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3263 (ALL)

Ram Nagina v. State of U. P. and another

2010-10-21

S.C.AGARWAL

body2010
S. C. Agarwal, J.:- Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. No notice is issued to private opposite party in view of the order proposed to be passed today, however, liberty is reserved for private opposite party to apply for variation or modification of this order if he feels so aggrieved. 3. This revision is directed against the order dated 31.5.2010, passed by the 1st Addl. Judicial Magistrate, Mohammadabad, Ghazipur in Criminal Complaint No. 3 of 2008, Ram Nagina v. Muritya Devi and others, under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 120B, 147, 148 and 149, I.P.C., P.S. Baresar, district-Ghazipur, whereby one of the accused Rajesh was discharged and charge under Sections 323, 504 and 506, I.P.C. was ordered to be framed against the remaining accused. The revisionist is the complainant in the aforesaid case. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that all the accused were summoned by the Magistrate vide order dated 11.3.2008. After recording evidence of the complainant under Section 244, Cr. P.C., the impugned order discharging Rajesh was passed by the Magistrate whereas there was sufficient ground to frame charge against opposite party No. 2. 5. Learned A.G.A. supported the impugned order. 6. I have perused the contents of the complaint and the statements of Ram Nagina (P.W. 1), Virendra Chaudhary (P.W. 2) and Savitri (P.W. 3) examined by the complainant under Section 244, Cr. P.C. All the three witnesses have stated that on the date of incident, i.e., 14.12.2007 at about 7 a.m. accused Muritya and Sarita were putting the garbage waste of their house near wall and foundation of the complainant. Smt. Savitri Devi (P.W. 3) protested, whereupon accused Muritya and Sarita abused Savitri Devi and beat her. When the complainant tried to save his wife, Muritya, Kedar and Haridwar threw him on the ground and tried to twist his neck. On alarm being raised, witnesses assembled and rescued the complainant and his wife. Smt. Savitri Devi was taken to hospital. 7. No allegation was made by the complainant against opposite party No. 2 Rajesh in his statement. Virendra Chaudhary and Savitri Devi did not make any allegation of maar-peet against Rajesh but they simply said that after the incident, the accused persons including Rajesh constructed wall adjoining the wall of the complainant. Smt. Savitri Devi was taken to hospital. 7. No allegation was made by the complainant against opposite party No. 2 Rajesh in his statement. Virendra Chaudhary and Savitri Devi did not make any allegation of maar-peet against Rajesh but they simply said that after the incident, the accused persons including Rajesh constructed wall adjoining the wall of the complainant. This subsequent act of raising wall does not amount to a criminal offence and is a civil matter. Admittedly, Rajesh was not involved in the beating of complainant or his wife. He was not even alleged to have been present at the time of incident. Therefore, there was no sufficient ground to frame charge against the Rajesh and learned Magistrate rightly discharged him and decided to frame charges against other co-accused. 8. The impugned order discharging Rajesh does not suffer from any error or illegality. 9. The revision is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.