Back
2019 Supreme(All) 630
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
RAHUL CHATURVEDI, J.
State Of U.P. - Appellant
Vs.
Mohd Furkan and Another - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 3971 of 2018; Application U/S 482 No. 44691 of 2018
Decided on : 15-05-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Dileep Kumar, Adv., Niraj Kumar Shukla, Adv., Rajrshi Gupta, Adv., Vijaya Nand Maurya, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 321 Cr.P.C. for withdrawal of prosecution, considering the evidence, witness statements, and the broader context of the case.
Headnote:
POCSO Act - Withdrawal of Prosecution - Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 452, 504, 436, 337 IPC and 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act - Summary: The court adjudicated on the withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 Cr.P.C. in a case involving multiple criminal charges. The court analyzed the evidence, witness statements, and the legality of the order rejecting the withdrawal. Key legal provisions such as Section 321 Cr.P.C. and relevant case law were considered in reaching the decision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an application for withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 Cr.P.C. in a criminal case with multiple charges. The applicant, an advocate, was implicated in the case based on statements of witnesses and subsequent investigation. The court analyzed the evidence and circumstances to determine the validity of the withdrawal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicant was not named in the FIR and witness statements did not implicate the applicant in the offense. The court also considered the antecedental history of the applicant and the political motivations behind implicating the applicant in the case. The court concluded that the prosecution could not proceed further based on the circumstances.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 Cr.P.C., the evidence implicating the applicant, and the political motivations behind the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence implicating the applicant, the political motivations behind the case, and the provisions of Section 321 Cr.P.C. The court also considered relevant case law on the withdrawal of prosecution.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order rejecting the withdrawal of prosecution and allowed both the application under Section 482 and the criminal revision.
RAHUL CHATURVEDI, J.
1. Perusal of record establishes that Application U/S 482 No.- 44691 of 2018 (Aishwarya Chaudhary @ Mausam v. State of U.P. and another) has been filed against order dated 29.08.2018 passed by I-Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bijnore whereby learned court has rejected application Kha 148 filed under section 321 Cr.P.C., by the Public Prosecutor/Prosecuting Officer for withdrawl of prosecution of aforesaid criminal case and acquittal of applicant Aishwarya Chaudhary @ Mausam and Criminal Revision No. 3971 of 2018 (State of U.P. v. Mohd. Furkan and another) has also been filed by the State challenging the aforesaid order on the ground of appreciation of evidence by the court of I-Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bijnore, which is allegedly arbitrary and erroneous in the eyes of law.
2. As both the aforesaid connected matters, through different judicial provisions, have been targetted against solitary order dated 29.08.2018 passed by I-Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Bijnore in Session Trial No. 121 of 2016 (State v. Sansar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 1036 of 2016, under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 452, 504, 436, 337 IPC and 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Khotwali Shahr, District Bijnore therefore, both the cases i.e., Application U/S 482 No.- 44691 of 2018 (Aishwarya Chaudhary @ Mausam v. State of U.P. and another) and Criminal Revision No. 3971 of 2018 (State of U.P. v. Mohd. Furkan and another) are being adjudicated and decided by this Court together with the consent of rival contesting parties.
Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and the matter is ripe for final arguments.
3. Heard Sri Dileep Kumar, assisted by Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh and Sri Rajarshi Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and Sri Vijaya Nand Maurya, learned counsel for private opposite party appearing in Application U/S 482 No.- 44691 of 2018 (Aishwarya Chaudhary @ Mausam v. State of U.P. and another).
4. Sri Vinod Kant, learned counsel for Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Pantanjali Mishra Sri Nikhil Chaturvedi, learned AGAs for the revisionist, Sri Vijayanad Maurya, learned counsel for private opposite party has also been heard in Criminal Revision No.- 3971 of 2018 (State of U.P. v. Mohd. Furkan and another).
5. Before coming to the merits of the case, it is necessary to spell out the facts of the case in its entirety, therefore, they are being enumerated herein below:
6. As per prosecution, the applicant- Aishwarya Chaudhary alias Mausam, registered as an Advocate in Bar Council of U.P., Allahabad is a meritorious and well established practicing lawyer at Bijnore judgeship. He happens to be the ex-President of District Youth Bar Association, Bijnore, organized law awareness programmes, legal aid camps for poor litigants and instrumental in maintaining the administration of justice. In fact, he is a philanthropist, who is engrossed in dozens of social, cultural and political activities in Bijnore. In addition to this, he has helped number of young and upcoming lawyers in boosting up their respective careers, assisted them in hour of need. Besides this, he is an income tax payee for last so many years.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in order to tarnish the image and reputation of the applicant, his opponents have hatched conspiracy to involve him at a later stage of the investigation in the case. The fact of the matter is that opposite party no. 2 - Md. Furqan lodged an FIR at 9.30 hours on 16.09.2016 at Police Station Kotwali Shahr, District Bijnore under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 452, 504, 436, 337 IPC and 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act with regard to a quarrel occurred between the rival parties, wherein 26 named and three unnamed persons were made accused by the informant. In the melee it is alleged that Anisuddin, Ehsan and Sarfaraz lost their lives
