Back
2018 Supreme(All) 1578
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.
Anil - Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. And Anr. - Respondents
Application U/S 482 No. 1740 of 2018
Decided On : 11-07-2018
Gaurav Kakkar, Adv., Arvind Agarwal, Adv.
Headnote:
Section 210 Cr.P.C. - Rejection of Application - Summary of Acts and Sections: Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 384, 506, 452, 427, 504, 120B, 395, 397, 364, 210 Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the interpretation and application of Section 210 Cr.P.C. in relation to the summoning order and the complaint case, and the legal provisions for clubbing criminal complaint case with the State case. The court also highlighted the legal principles established in previous judgments and their influence on the decision.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed an application under Section 210 Cr.P.C. challenging the summoning order in a complaint case, arguing that the charge sheet in the state case had been submitted earlier and cognizance had also been taken earlier, so the proceedings of the complaint case should have been tried together with the state case. The court rejected the application, stating that the objection had been raised and rejected earlier, and the second application was misconceived and not maintainable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the objection raised by the applicant on the strength of Section 210 Cr.P.C. was not available to be raised at that stage, as it had been previously raised and rejected. The court also concluded that the second application filed by the applicant was misconceived and not maintainable.
Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the application under Section 210 Cr.P.C. and the maintainability of the second application filed by the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the objection raised by the applicant had been previously raised and rejected, and the second application was misconceived and not maintainable. The court also emphasized the interpretation and application of Section 210 Cr.P.C. and the legal principles established in previous judgments.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application under Section 210 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant, stating that the objection had been raised and rejected earlier, and the second application was misconceived and not maintainable.
Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.
Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arvind Agarwal, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Nagendra Kumar Srivastava, learned AGA for the State.
2. The present application has been filed by the accused against the order dated 23.12.2017 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Mathura in proceeding of State Case No. 2407 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No. 223A of 2017, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 427, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Refinery, District Mathura. By that order, the application filed by the applicant under Section 210 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
3. Briefly, the facts giving rise to the present application are that on 16.08.2013 an FIR had been lodged by the applicant against the opposite party no.2 alleging commission of offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 384, 506, 452 IPC. It was registered as Case Crime No. 223 of 2013, Police Station Refinery, District Mathura. On the same date a cross case came to be registered against the applicant under Section 395, 397, 364 IPC in Case Crime No. 223 A of 2013. Subsequently section 307 I.P.C. was also introduced. It is also on record that the applicant was enlarged on bail during the course of investigation, for the offence alleged under Section 307 IPC.
4. Subsequently, on 26.12.2014, a charge sheet was submitted against the applicant in Case Crime No. 223A of 2013 under Section 147, 148, 323, 427, 504, 506 IPC. However, the applicant was not charged for offence alleged under Section 307 IPC.
5. In such circumstance, the opposite party no.2 instituted a complaint case No. 549A of 2015 with respect to the same incident, alleging commission of offence under Section 307 IPC. In that complaint case, the applicant was summoned under Sections 307 and 120B IPC. The co-accused Karinda Singh, Mahesh, Om Prakash, Sunil and Devo were summoned under Section 364 IPC.
6. The applicant challenged the summoning order by means of Criminal Revision No. 70 of 2016 filed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura. It came to be decided by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Court No.4, Mathura by his order dated 09.05.2016. From the memo of revision and the order passed thereon, it appears, at that stage itself, the applicant had raised an objection that he had been wrongly summoned in the complaint case since the state case had already been registered against him wherein he had been summoned. The Court of Revision negated his objection by order dated 09.05.2016. In paragraph 9 of that order it was clearly observed, the offence under Section 307 and 120B IPC are different from the offence under Sections, 147, 148, 323, 427, 504, 506 IPC with respect to which the applicant had been summoned in the state case.
7. The applicant challenged the aforesaid order passed by the revision court in application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 17161 of 2016. The court negated the challenge raised by the applicant and disposed of the application with the following observations:
"However, it is provided that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., 2004 57 AllLR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2009) 3 ADJ 322 (SC) For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.
However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
It is made clear that no further time shall be granted to the applicants to appear and surrender before the court concerned.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of
