Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2019 DIGILAW 807 (SC)

Sanju v. Layak Singh

2019-02-22

INDU MALHOTRA, UDAY UMESH LALIT

body2019
ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal challenges the order dated 05.10.2018 passed by the High Court Judicature at Allahabad in Application No.34776 of 2018 moved by the first respondent Layak Singh (original Accused No.2) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") 3. In Sessions Trial No.132/2018, on the file of Sessions Judge, Hathras, in respect of offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Trial Court vide its order dated 06.06.2018 framed charges in respect of the offences in question. The aforementioned application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was thereafter filed by Layak Singh against the order framing charges. 4. The matter came up before the High Court on 05.10.2018. First part of the order indicates that after hearing the learned counsel for Layak Singh, the matter was confined to the relief of consideration of the main issue. The subsequent observations made by the High Court however indicate that Layak Singh was given liberty to file an application for discharge which the Trial Court was directed to consider and dispose of on merits. 5. This Court issued notice on 11.01.2019 and stayed the operation of the order passed by the High Court. 6. According to the office report, the accused Layak Singh, though served in the matter has chosen not to enter appearance. 7. We have heard Mr. Siddharth Dave, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Vinod Diwakar, learned AAG for the State of Uttar of Pradesh. 8. In our view, the order passed by the High Court is not correct. The matter had arisen after the charges were framed by the Sessions Court and the order framing charges was questioned by way of application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was open to the High Court to consider the merits or demerits of the contentions and see whether the order framing charges was justified or not. Without undertaking such course, the High Court could not and ought not to have directed Layak Singh to prefer an application for discharge and relegate the matter back to the Trial Court. 9. We, therefore, set-aside the order and restore the application No.34776 of 2018 on the file of the High Court. We also request the High Court to hear and dispose of the application within four weeks from the receipt of this order. 10. 9. We, therefore, set-aside the order and restore the application No.34776 of 2018 on the file of the High Court. We also request the High Court to hear and dispose of the application within four weeks from the receipt of this order. 10. A copy of this order shall be sent to the High Court immediately so that the matter can be placed before the concerned Court. 11. This appeal stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.