Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

More documents

Recommendations

Info

980 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009 the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Private Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Chaudhari and others (2008) 10 SCC 681 may be referred in which it was held that 10. "even if there is a strong suspicion about the commission of offence and the involvement of the accused, it is sufficient for the court to frame a charge. At that stage, there is no necessity of formulating the opinion about the prospect of conviction". 11. Similarly Hon'ble Supreme Court in Soma Chakravarty Vs. State through C.B.I. (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 514 held as under : "it may be mentioned that the settled legal position, is that if on the basis of material on record the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. At the time of framing of the charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. Before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commitment of offence by the accused was possible. Whether, in fact, the accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial". committed the offence, a charge can be framed against him. 13. In the present case there is sufficient evidence to show the involvement of the accused in the commission of the Crime. There is evidence of Dinesh Kumar Tiwari as well as Mangal Tiwari that it was the accused applicant Kailash Gupta who had exorted for opening fire and thereafter, Kapil Gupta had opened fire causing injuries to Gaurav and Mangal. Subsequently, Gaurav succumbed to the injuries. It is true that the investigating officer has concluded that the involvement of the revisionist Kailash Gupta has not been found in the murder of Gaurav but the court is not bound by the conclusions arrived at by the investigating officer. There is sufficient material in the case diary showing that the accused Kailash Gupta is also prima facie involved in the murder of Gaurav and the infliction of injuries to Mangal Tiwari. 14. The learned Sessions Judge has not committed any illegality in rejecting the discharge application of the accused Kailash Gupta and I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Sessions Judge passed on 7.7.2009. 15. The revision is therefore, dismissed. --------- 12. In view of the above rulings it is clear that if there is sufficient material on record that the accused might have
3 All] Anil Kumar Vashisth V. State of U.P. and others 981 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.10.2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE VIJAY KUMAR VERMA, J. Criminal Misc. Application No. 19770 of 2009 Anil Kumar Vashisth …Applicant Versus State of U.P. & others …Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicant: Sri R.K. Kaushik Counsel for the Opposite Parties: A.G.A. Code of Criminal Procedure-482- Procedure after receiving final report on protest application an order accepting final report ignoring protest applicationeven without giving any notice to informant-illegal-procedure contained in Chapter XV should be followed treating complaint to the protest applicationorder passed by Courts below set-asidematter remanded for fresh consideration. Held: Para 14 Consequently, both the applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are allowed. Setting aside the impugned orders, the courts below are directed to pass orders on the protest petitions filed by the applicants against final reports in both the cases, treating the same as complaint and following the procedure laid down under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Case law discussed: 2003 (46) ACC182. (Delivered by Hon’ble Vijay Kumar Verma, J.) 1. “Whether the final report can be accepted without passing any order on the protest petition filed by the complainant in the case where prima facie offences are disclosed from the averments made in the FIR,: is the main legal question that falls for consideration in both these applications under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’). 2. By means of Criminal Misc. Application No. 19770 of 2009, order dated 21.03.2009 passed by the Special Judge, (D.A.A.), Jhansi in Criminal Misc. Case No. 690 of 2007 (Anil Kumar Vashisth Vs. Shiv Prakash and others) under section 395 IPC, P.S. Irach, District Jhansi is sought to be quashed, whereas in Criminal Misc. Application No. 19771 of 2009, prayer to quash the order dated 20.05.2009 passed by the judicial Magistrate, Garotha in Criminal Misc. Case No. 52 of 2008 (Km. Bhanwati Vs. Badri and others) under section 379,352,504, 506 IPC P.S. Garotha, District Jhansi has been made. 3. Although different orders have been challenged by means of these applications under section 482 Cr.P.C., but since the common legal question is involved in both these applications, hence for the sake of convenience, they are being decided by this common order. 4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts emerging from the record leading to the filling of these applications, in brief, are that an FIR was lodged on 17.10.2007 by Anil Kumar Vashisth (applicant in Application No. 19770 of 2009) at P.S. Irach (Jhansi), where a case under section 395, 397 IPC at case crime No. 320 of 2007 was registered against Sri Prakash, Ashok Kumar, Sri Ram, Ram Kumar, Lakhan Lal, Mahadev (opposite parties
Page 1 and 2: 3 All] Smt. Katori Devi V. Nawab Si
Page 7: 3 All] Kailash Babu Gupta V. State
Page 11 and 12: 3 All] Anil Kumar Vashisth V. State
Page 13 and 14: 3 All] Smt. Sadhana Singh V. State
Page 21 and 22: 3 All] C/M, Lok Bharti Inter Colleg
Page 23 and 24: 3 All] Krishan Kumar V. State of U.
Page 25 and 26: 3 All] Smt. Raman Pandey and others
Page 27 and 28: 3 All] Smt. Shailendra Rai V. State
Page 39 and 40: 3 All] Rishi Pal Singh V. State of
Page 45 and 46: 3 All] Naik R.K. Mahapatra V. Chief
Page 53 and 54: 3 All] Jafar Khan V. State of U.P.
Page 55 and 56: 3 All] New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Page 57 and 58: 3 All] New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Page 59 and 60:
3 All] New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Page 61 and 62:
3 All] National Insurance Co.Ltd. V
Page 63 and 64:
3 All] National Insurance Co.Ltd. V
Page 65 and 66:
3 All] Vinay Kumar Upadhyay V.State
Page 67 and 68:
3 All] Vinay Kumar Upadhyay V.State
Page 69 and 70:
3 All] Aligarh Muslim University an
Page 71 and 72:
3 All] Aligarh Muslim University an
Page 73 and 74:
3 All] Rishikesh Lal Srivastava V.S
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
3 All] Matloob Gaur V.State of U.P.
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
3 All] Ashutosh Kumar Tripathi V.St
Page 109 and 110:
3 All] Superintending Engineer and
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
3 All] Dr. R.C. Agrawal and another
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
show all

Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?