Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 66 (ALL)

Sahim v. State of U. P.

2025-01-17

SAURABH LAVANIA

body2025
JUDGMENT : SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. Heard Shri Farooq Ayoob, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for the following main relief(s):- "Wherefore it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 06.01.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.18, in Crl. Misc. Case No.259/2009 (State of U.P. versus Sahim) crime No. 899/2008, U/S- 468, 471, 420, 181, 201 I.P.C., P.S.- Jaidpur, District- Barabanki, which is pending before C.J.M. Court No. 18, District - Barabanki, as contained in Annexure No. 1 respectively to this petition, in the interest of law and Justice." 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows :- (i) An F.I.R. was lodged on 14.12.2008, by Shri K.K. Singh, S.H.O., Police Station Jaidpur, District - Barabanki which was registered as Case Crime No.899/2008, under Sections 368, 471, 420, 181 and 201 I.P.C., implicating the applicant. (ii) Based upon the evidence/material available on record, the charge-sheet in the matter was filed by the Investigating Officer Indrajeet Kumar Arya and cognizance was taken. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.18, Barabanki proceeded in the matter after framing of the charges for the offence under Sections 468 , 471, 181, 201 I.P.C. against the applicant. The applicant denied the charges and claimed trial. (iii) As per material available before this Court, PW-1 was examined on 29.01.2010. PW-2 was examined on 18.08.2023. PW-3 was examined on 31.03.2024. Details of PW-4 have not been indicated in the petition, though it ought to have been mentioned. PW-5/S.I. Indrajeet Arya was examined on 15.03.2024 and thereafter on 26.07.2024 PW-5/S.I. Indrajeet Arya was cross examined. 4. Thereafter, the application dated 16.08.2024, under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was preferred by the prosecution, which reads as under :- 5. The trial court, passed the impugned order dated 06.01.2025, whereby allowed the above indicated application, which has been challenged in the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The impugned order dated 06.01.2025, is extracted herein below:- 6. Considering the aforesaid facts, this court finds that interference in the impugned order is required. The trial court, passed the impugned order dated 06.01.2025, whereby allowed the above indicated application, which has been challenged in the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The impugned order dated 06.01.2025, is extracted herein below:- 6. Considering the aforesaid facts, this court finds that interference in the impugned order is required. It is for the following reasons :- "(i) The trial court while allowing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has not recorded reasons for exercising its power under Section 311 Cr.P.C., though as per law the same are required, including on the issue as to whether the reasons indicated in the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling PW-5/S.I. Indrajeet Arya are tangible." 7. For the reasons as aforesaid the order dated 01.06.2025, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki is set aside. 8. The matter is remanded back to the trial court for passing the fresh order, strictly in accordance with law, after taking note of the various pronouncements on the issue including the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Shiv Kumar Yadav and Another, (2016) 2 SCC 402 ; Swapan Kumar Chatterjee Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation , 2019 (14) SCC 328 .