Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 561 (ALL)

Shahnawaz v. State of U. P.

2017-02-16

NAHEED ARA MOONIS

body2017
JUDGMENT Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record The applicant who is the complainant in Complaint case No. 2658 of 2015 has made a prayer invoking inherent power of this Court that the record of the Complaint Case No. 2658 of 2015, under Sections 307, 302 and 459 I.P.C. be remitted to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor from the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Bijnor. So that the instant case be committed to the court of Session by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that a complaint was filed before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor against the accused/respondents 2 to 6 with respect to an incident occurred in the house of the uncle of the applicant and the accused persons started firing and during the course of firing one Akhlaque and Wasim received serious injuries and the uncle of the applicant has also sustained serious injuries but no first information report was lodged against the accused respondents, hence the complaint was filed, which was registered as complaint Case No. 2658 of 2015. The learned Magistrate proceeded to summon the accused respondents to face trial under Sections 307, 302 and 459 I.P.C. by order dated 15.12.2015 on the basis of the statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. of the complainant and the witnesses and after going through other documentary evidence. Regarding the same incident Smt. Meena wife of accused Akhlaque lodged a first information report stating that the incident had taken place in her house whereas the incident had occurred in the house of the applicant's uncle. The first information report was registered as case Crime No. 261 of 2015 and after investigation the charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons named in the first information report. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the complaint case the summoning order was challenged by accused Shadab by filing a criminal revision before the court of District & Sessions Judge, Bijnor. The revision was numbered as Criminal Revision No. 6 of 2016. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the complaint case the summoning order was challenged by accused Shadab by filing a criminal revision before the court of District & Sessions Judge, Bijnor. The revision was numbered as Criminal Revision No. 6 of 2016. The revision was admitted on the ground that in respect of the same incident a police case has also been registered in which charge sheet has been submitted, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 5.1.2016 admitted the revision and issued notices to the parties. Thereafter the revision was transferred before the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Bijnor for its disposal. Since the revision was admitted the record of the complaint case was summoned and the case was adjourned. The complaint case is a cross case of State Case which is pending as S.T. No. 552 of 2015 (State Vs. Rizwan and others) and the trial is proceeding but on account of transmission of record before the revisional court the complaint case could not be committed to the Court of Sessions, hence the applicant moved an application before the revisional court, the learned revisional court allowed the application and directed the office to send back the file of the complaint case to the trial court. Thereafter again the record of the complaint case was transmitted to the court of Sessions due to the pendency of the criminal revision, the opposite parties are adopting dilatory tactics no final order has been passed even when there is no stay order was granted by the revisional court in favour of the accused respondents and hence this petition has been filed seeking indulgence of this Court to direct the learned revisional court to decide the Criminal Revision No. 6 of 2016 within a stipulated period and send back the record of the complaint Case No. 2658 of 2015 to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor so that the complaint case be committed to the court of Sessions where the trial is already going on in S.T. No. 552 of 2015. The learned A.G.A. has no objection to the plea raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. The learned A.G.A. has no objection to the plea raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant and considering the entire facts and circumstance of the case from the perusal of the record it transpires that the record of the trial court has been summoned by the revisional court in Complaint Case No. 2658 of 2015 and since State case is also arising out of the same incident in which the trial is proceeding in order to secure the ends of justice this court is of the opinion that the revisional court shall make earnest endeavour and without granting any further adjournment shall pass appropriate order in the pending Criminal Revision No. 6 of 2016 filed by the opposite parties and shall remit the trial court record forthwith to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor. It is made clear that the learned revisional court shall proceed to decide the aforesaid revision and remit the record of the Complaint Case No. 2658 of 2015 to the court below on the next date fixed. With the above directions the petition is disposed of.