Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1598 (ALL)

Narendra v. State of U. P.

2014-05-15

ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI II

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II), J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 06.03.2014 and also challenging the order dated 07.02.2014 by which application for discharge has been rejected. 3. As per factual matrix of the case, a first information report was lodged against the revisionist and chargesheet was submitted under Section 3 76 , 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of PASCO Act. The charge was framed on 07.02.2014 under Section 3 76 , 504 I.P.C. and 6 of PASCO Act. An application was moved by the revisionist on 06.03.20147 with the allegation that charge was framed without giving opportunity of hearing to the accused with the assistance of legal practitioner. The Court below rejected this application on the same day holding that the application has been moved just to delay the disposal of the case. 4. The order framing charge was also filed along with supplementary affidavit which mention that: "Case called out. Accused is present in judicial custody. Heard the accused. Allegation made against accused read over and to accused in simple Hindi. Accused denied with the offences made out against him. He denied with the offences and for trial. Charge framed against accused on separate sheet. Put up on 20/2/14 for evidence, summon the witness no. 1 and 3." 5. It was submitted that as the accused was not heard before framing of the charge, charge be quashed and he be given opportunity to be heard before framing of charge. 6. Learned A.G.A. submitted that charge has been framed in this case hence it can not be quashed in exercise of revisional power. 7. It is also note worthy that revisional powers of the Court can not be exercised in quashing the charge as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Salman Saleem Khan, 2004 (48) ACC 606 SC, Nem Chand Jain Vs. Roshan Lal (2004) 13 SCC 461 and Munni Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2002 SC 107 . 8. In view of this, when the charge can not be quashed in revisional jurisdiction, this criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.