Back
SANJAY KUMAR SINGH
Nand Lal Verma – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
Key Points: - The court held that the Magistrate cannot add or subtract sections at the time of taking cognizance in a case based on a police report (Cr.P.C. Sections 216, 218, and 228) per State of Gujarat Vs. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde (2014) AIR SC 620. (!) - The impugned order dated 17.6.2008 and the charge-sheet dated 29.5.2008 were quashed against the present applicants as the Magistrate exceeded his jurisdiction by adding additional accused and altering sections at cognizance. (!) - The judgment reiterates that at cognizance, a magistrate may not add or subtract sections and may not add non-charge-sheeted accused; such actions are permissible only at framing of charges under sections 216, 218, or 228 during trial. (!) (!) (!) - The decision cites that in State of Gujarat Vs. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde, the specific proposition is that the magistrate cannot alter sections at cognizance stage in a police-based case; after charge-sheet, issues are to be determined at framing of charges. (!) (!) - The court allowed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed the impugned order and charge-sheet regarding the applicants, calling the proceedings an abuse of process of the court. (!)
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay Kumar Singh, J.
Case called out in the revised list. Sri N.D. Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri N.D. Rai and Sri Virendra Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocates for the State of U.P./opposite party no.1 are present. No one is present on behalf of the opposite party no.2.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the opposite party no.2 (Bare Lal) of this case is also the applicant no.1 in connected Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 28032 of 2008, therefore, he is very much aware about the present case and after granting interim stay order dated 30.6.2008 in this case, the opposite party no.2 of this case has also preferred Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 28032 of 2008, but no counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party no.2 (Bare Lal) in this case.
3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that this case is pending before this Court since 2008 but on account of non-appearance of learned counsels appearing in connected Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 28032 of 2008 final hearing of the present case could not take place. Recently, this case was listed
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
