Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1320 (ALL)

Raghvendra Singh Raghav v. State of U. P.

2016-04-08

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2016
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri Amit Saxena for the petitioner and AGA for the opposite party. 2. This petition has been filed against the order of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 8.7.2015, by which he has rejected the charge sheet dated 2.3.2014 and the order of Additional Sessions Judge dated 23.3.2016 dismissing the revision of the petitioner against the aforesaid order. 3. It is alleged that Raghvendra Singh Raghav was married to Smt. Seema according to Hindu rites on 1.5.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a suit, i.e. Suit No. 766/2008 u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. In retaliation of this suit, respondent-2 lodged an FIR in which not only the petitioner, but his various relations have also been implicated. The petitioner as well as other co-accused earlier challenged the FIR in writ petition, in which this court by order dated 5.8.2008 granted stay of arrest of the petitioner. Subsequently, the charge sheet in the case was submitted, on which the cognizance was taken by the Magistrate on 4.9.2008. After taking cognizance, the petitioner filed an application u/s 482 CrPC, i.e. Application u/s 482 No. 28758/2008, in which, initially the dispute was referred to Mediation Centre, but subsequently, mediation failed and this court by order dated 7.10.2013 disposed of the petition, giving interim protection to the petitioner. In the meantime, the petitioner and other co-accused were directed to surrender before the court below and apply for bail. In the meantime, the petitioner approached the Senior Superintendent of Police, who by order dated 18.11.2013, directed for further investigation. In pursuance of the order dated 18.11.2013, the I.O. applied to the court for permission for further investigation. The Magistrate concerned by order dated 7.12.2013 permitted for further investigation. After further investigation, the I.O. found that apart from the petitioner, several persons were wrongly implicated and therefore, final report has been submitted against the other accused person and charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner. However, the Magistrate by order dated 8.7.2014 rejected this charge sheet. The order dated 8.7.2014 was challenged by the petitioner and other co-accused in Criminal Revision No. 637/2014, which has been dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 2.3.2016. However, the Magistrate by order dated 8.7.2014 rejected this charge sheet. The order dated 8.7.2014 was challenged by the petitioner and other co-accused in Criminal Revision No. 637/2014, which has been dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 2.3.2016. The other co-accused filed petition u/s 227, i.e. Matters under Article 227 No. 1517/2016, in which the operation of the order of Magistrate dated 8.7.2014, so far it was against the other co-accused, has been stayed. However, this court had permitted to proceed with the trial against the petitioner. Now, the petitioner has filed this petition. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the charge sheet submitted on 2.3.2014, there have been several evidence which support the defence of the petitioner, but by the order dated 8.7.2014, the charge sheet has been rejected, thus the petitioner will have no opportunity to place reliance upon the material collected during subsequent material collected during further investigation, although further investigation has been permitted by the Magistrate himself by order dated 7.12.2013. In the circumstances, the rejection of the charge sheet dated 2.3.2014 is liable to be stayed against the petitioner also. 5. I have considered the arguments of counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. By the charge sheet dated 2.3.2014, the petitioner has been charge sheeted, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to rely upon the evidence collected during further investigation and submitted along with the charge sheet dated 2.3.2014. The further investigation has not only been permitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, but leave in this respect has also been granted by the Magistrate concerned by order dated 7.12.2013, therefore, at this stage, the petitioner cannot be deprived to place reliance upon the material collected through further investigation. 6. In the circumstances, it is provided that in case the petitioners appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this court in the case of Amrawati and another vs. State of U.P reported in 2004(57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322(SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. It is also provided that during the trial, the petitioner can rely upon the material collected during further investigation and submitted along with the charge sheet dated 2.3.2014. 7. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners. It is made clear that in case the petitioners do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them. 8. With the aforesaid observation the petition is disposed of.