Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2120 (ALL)

HARPAL v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-09-08

HARSH KUMAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J. Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel for the revisionist has filed a certified copy of charge-sheet, today, which is taken as a part of record. 2. Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi Advocate, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Vivek Kumar Singh Advocate, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. 3. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 20.07.2011, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Baghpat, in Sessions Trial No. 290 of 2011, arising out of Case crime No. 274-A of 2010, Police Station - Ramala, District - Bhaghpat, by which the learned trial court is said to have added Section 308 of I.P.C on the oral prayer made by the prosecution. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist contends that the husband of opposite party no. 2 and his associates attacked the nephew of the revisionist on 03.08.2010, regarding which an F.I.R was lodged by him on 03.08.2010 against husband and other family members of opposite party no. 2 at Case Crime No. 274-A of 2010 under Sections 323, 324 & 307 of I.P.C and after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under above Sections; that subsequently opposite party no. 2, the wife of accused in above case lodged an F.I.R for the alleged same day incident of 03.08.2010 against the revisionist and others on 23.09.2010, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 395, 492 & 504 of I.P.C, which was registered as Case Crime No.274-A, a cross case to the F.I.R lodged by Nagendra Singh, the nephew of the revisionist; that in the above Case Crime No. 274-A of 2010, upon investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the revisionist and three other persons under Sections 323, 324 & 504 of I.P.C; that being cross case the the Case Crime No. 274-A of 2010 was also committed to sessions for trial together and at the time of hearing on framing of charge the learned trial court, the Additional Sessions Judge on oral prayer of prosecution has added Section 308 I.P.C for framing charge against the accused-revisionist; that the learned trial court had no jurisdiction to add any Section in which charge-sheet has not been submitted, and the learned trial court has acted wrongly and illegally in adding the Section 308 of I.P.C for framing charge on the oral prayer of opposite party no. 2; that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and revision is liable to be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 supported the impugned order and contended that, it is wrong to say that the charge-sheet in Case Crime No. 274-A of 2010 was submitted only under Sections 323, 324 & 504 of I.P.C and Section 308 I.P.C was added by the trial court on oral prayer of the prosecution; that the trial court has not added any Section in the charge-sheet after its submission; that the true fact is that charge-sheet was submitted for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 504 & 308 I.P.C and the same was submitted by the Investigating Officer in the court after required endorsement by the superior/circle officer on 04.04.2011 on which cognizance was taken by the Magistrate for above offences on 18.04.2011; that upon receipt of N.C.C.T report regarding the head injury of the injured Jal Karan and supplementary report and statement of Medical Officer, the injury was dangerous to life the offence under Section 308 of I.P.C was added before submission of charge-sheet; that since the F.I.R was lodged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 395, 492, 504 of I.P.C, so the prosecution had made a request for adding the above Sections but considering the fact that charge-sheet has been filed under Sections 323, 324 and 504 & 308 I.P.C, the trial court has refused to entertain the prayer for adding the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 395, 452 I.P.C. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist in rebuttal arguments submitted that after submission of charge-sheet on 20.10.2010, the addition of Section 308 of I.P.C has been made by the Sessions Judge and not by the Investigating Officer. He produced the certified copy of charge-sheet in support of his contention which is taken and made part of the record. 7. Learned counsel for the revisionist in rebuttal arguments submitted that after submission of charge-sheet on 20.10.2010, the addition of Section 308 of I.P.C has been made by the Sessions Judge and not by the Investigating Officer. He produced the certified copy of charge-sheet in support of his contention which is taken and made part of the record. 7. Upon hearing the the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record as well as perusal of certified copy of the charge-sheet produced by the counsel for the revisionists, during arguments, I find that it is crystal clear, that the F.I.R of Case Crime No. 274-A/2010, in question was lodged for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 325, 452, 504 I.P.C in which upon investigation, Investigating Officer prepared charge-sheet for offences under Sections 323, 324 & 504 I.P.C. The Investigating Officer used to submit charge-sheets in courts, after due endorsement/approval of his Superior Officer/the Circle Officer. In this particular case upon further investigation, an endorsement was made by Investigating Officer on 31.01.2011 on the charge-sheet to the effect that ^^Jheku~ th] vfHk;ksx esa /kkjk 308 vkbZ0ih0lh0 dk btkQk fd;k tk jgk gSA /kkjk 308 vkbZ0ih0lh0 esa laKku ysus dh d`ik djsaA** and thereafter after obtaining approval/endorsement of Superior Officer/the Circle Officer on 04.04.2011, charge-sheet was submitted in Court upon which cognizance was taken by the Magistrate on 18.04.2011. The perusal of CA-3 shows that during further investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded statement of Medical Officer on 31.01.2011, wherein he stated that in view of N.C.C.T report and supplementary medical report of injured Jal Karan the injuries were found to be dangerous to his life and only thereafter addition of offence under Section 308 I.P.C was made in the charge-sheet before submitting it in Court. 8. The perusal of impugned order also shows that the Sessions Judge upon hearing, wherein the prosecution pressed for framing of charges against accused persons also under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 308 and 395, I.P.C, has specifically mentioned, that charge-sheet has been submitted not only under Section 323, 324, 504 I.P.C., but also under Section 308 I.P.C, and turned down the prayer for framing charges under Sections 147, 148, 147, 307, 395 and 452 I.P.C. 9. The perusal of record, shows that the accused-revisionist has filed the present revision with absolutely false and incorrect allegations and mala-fide intentions to stall the proceedings of cross case against him for a period of over 6 years. The revision is frivolous, vexatious and misconceived. 10. In view of the discussions made above, I find that the learned counsel for the revisionist had failed to show any illegality, irregularity, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned order and there is no sufficient ground for interfering with or setting it aside the impugned order. The revision has got no force and is liable to be dismissed. 11. The revision is dismissed, accordingly. 12. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below, for ascertaining necessary compliance.