Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 470 (UTT)

DEVPAL SINGH RANA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2017-08-31

U.C.DHYANI

body2017
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J.(Oral) By means of present criminal writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 08.08.2017, passed by learned Addl. District Judge I, Roorkee, District Haridwar. 2. Accused-petitioner is facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149 IPC, in Sessions Trial no. 65 of 2017, State vs Devpal Rana, which relates to police station Gangnahar, Roorkee, District Haridwar. Charge sheet was filed against the petitioner. A date was fixed for arguments / framing of charge against the accused-petitioner. 3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation has since been handed over to CBCID, therefore, an application for adjournment was moved on his behalf before the trial court, who dismissed such an application. Feeling aggrieved with the same, present criminal writ petition has been filed. 4. As has been stated above, since a date was fixed for arguments / framing of charge against the accused-petitioner, therefore, petitioner moved an application before the trial court that so long such investigation by CBCID continues, charge should not be framed against him. 5. Such an application was dismissed by the trial court on 08.08.2017. Since the order impugned is very short, therefore, the same is being reproduced here-in-below for convenience: “Heard. Learned counsel for applicant stated that charge could not be framed as further investigation is pending by CBCID Dehradun. Learned ADGC (Cri) opposed that no bar is there on framing charge because charge sheet was filed against the applicant when he was absconding. Later case was committed to Sessions Court. After hearing both parties, this Court is of the view that there is no bar to frame charge thus application is hereby dismissed." 6. CBCID is investigating a case against accused-petitioner which may take time, since it is a case under Section 302 IPC, as well. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure to stay the proceedings of the Sessions Trial so long as the investigation is being conducted by some other investigating agency. Sessions Trial cannot be postponed for ad infinitum, especially, when the petitioner is in jail. This Court, therefore, does not see any reason to hold that proceedings of Sessions Trial be postponed ad infinitum till the investigation continues to be done by another investigating agency (CBCID in the instant case). 3 7. Sessions Trial cannot be postponed for ad infinitum, especially, when the petitioner is in jail. This Court, therefore, does not see any reason to hold that proceedings of Sessions Trial be postponed ad infinitum till the investigation continues to be done by another investigating agency (CBCID in the instant case). 3 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Bihar and another vs J.A.C. Saldanha and others, 1980 SCC (Cri) 272. The facts of the instant case are at variance with Saldanha's case (supra). No principle has been laid down that if the trial court rejects an application for postponing the framing of charge, the writ court should interfere with the same in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. 8. This Court is unable to take a view different from what was taken by the trial court. 9. Criminal writ petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. 10. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum, when the CBCID, after conducting the investigation, takes a view favourable to the petitioner.