Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3613 (ALL)

Prem Kumar Pandey v. State of U. P.

2016-11-02

OM PRAKASH VII

body2016
JUDGMENT Om Prakash-VII,J. The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 27.09.2016 passed by learned Special Judge (D.A.A. Act) Banda as well as entire proceedings of Special Session Trial No. 53 of 2001 (Raj Karan Sahu vs. Prem Kumar Pandey & Others) under Sections 452, 323, 395 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Banda pending in the Court of Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (D.A.A.), Banda. Further prayer has been made to stay further proceedings of the aforesaid case. 2. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has approached before this Court taking recourse of provision U/S 482 Cr.P.C. against the summoning order passed in the present matter and the proceedings of the aforesaid complaint had been stayed but it was dismissed for non prosecution on 12.08.2010. The court below has proceeded to try the matter and has framed the charge against the applicant without recording the evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. It is further argued that the application moved by the applicant was also rejected on insufficient ground on 27.09.2016 as the act said to have been committed in the present matter by the applicant comes under the purview of discharge of official duty. Hence, sanction for prosecution was required in the present matter. For want of sanction the criminal proceedings can not be continued. It is further argued that the Court below while passing the order on 27.09.2016 has not taken into consideration all these facts and has illegally passed the impugned orders and framing the charges has proceeded to try the matter. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the entire record. 5. In this matter on 27.09.2016 objection raised on behalf of the applicant was rejected and on the same day charge against the applicant has also been framed to face the trial for the offence under Section 452 , 323 read with Section 149 and 395 I.P.C. 6. As far as the requirement of sanction to proceed with the prosecution is concerned the averments made in the complaint do not come under the purview of discharge of official duty. As far as the requirement of sanction to proceed with the prosecution is concerned the averments made in the complaint do not come under the purview of discharge of official duty. Thus the opinion formed by the court below while rejecting the prayer for discharge can not be said to be illegal on this ground. 7. As far as recording of statements under Section 244 Cr.P.C. is concerned when the first application moved U/S 482 Cr.P.C. earlier by the applicant had been rejected, no ground is made out to exercise the jurisdiction again at this stage to set aside the entire proceedings of the aforesaid trial. However, the court concerned is hereby directed to go through the procedure prescribed under the Criminal Procedure Code to proceed with the complaint case. If there is mandatory provision to record the evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. before proceeding further with the trial the Court below will pass appropriate order in this regard and in that situation charge framed on 27.09.2016 against the applicant will be deemed to have been set aside. 8. Thus the application is disposed of with the observations recorded herein above.