Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
Shamshad Ahmad – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Application U/s 482/378/407 Nos. 4525, 4539, 4542 of 2021
Decided On : 17-12-2021
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226/227 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Sections 162, 220, 220 (1), 158 and 173 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 336, 307, 353, 341, 427, 188 and 120 - Public Property (prevention of Damage) Act, 1985 - Section 3/4 - Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932 - Section 7 - Attempt to murder - Rioting - Alleged second and third occurrence were nothing but a fall out of the first occurrence - He has also submitted that since incidence in question is of the same day and accused persons are almost same then a single charge-sheet could have been filed in all three crime cases, so that petitioner who has been implicated subsequently invoking the provisions of Section 120-B I.P.C. has to face one trial in all three crime cases and in that situation prosecution would not suffer any inconvenience or prejudice and it would be also convenient for petitioner to face a single trial - Learned counsel for petitioner has reiterated that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged.
Finding of the Court:
Least while taking cognizance of second and third charge-sheet - Magistrate must have asked Investigating Agency as to why after carrying out separate investigation in all three, more or less similar, incidents, three separate charge-sheets have been filed - Learned Magistrate must have seen that what prejudice would be caused to prosecution if single charge-sheet is filed clubbing all the charge-sheets together inasmuch - Petitioner is directed to appear/surrender before learned court below pursuant to cognizance order within a period of three weeks from today and may file bail application and if such bail application is filed within the aforesaid stipulated time, the same may be decided expeditiously, preferably on same day in light of dictum of the Apex Court.
Result: Three petitions disposed of
JUDGMENT :
RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard Sri. Vikas Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Anurag Varma, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
2. In all the aforesaid petitions, the same prayer has been made by the same petitioner, therefore, these petitions are being decided together with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. Further, all the petitions are being decided together by a common judgment and Case U/s 482/378/407 No. 4542 of 2021 is being treated as a leading case/petition and the facts of the case have been taken from that petition.
3. For the convenience, the prayers of the aforesaid petitions are being reproduced herein-below:
(ii) By means of this petition i.e. Case U/s 482/378/407 No. 4525 of 2021, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Charge-Sheet No. 99-A of 2020 dated 25.04.2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 336, 395, 397, 341, 427, 307, 188 and 120-B I.P.C. read with 3/4 of Public Property (Prevention of Damage) Act, 1985 and Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932 and order dated 26.11.2020 whereby the cognizance of the said offences has been taken and for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 8556 of 2020 (State of U.P. vs. Siraj Ahmad and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 490 of 2019, Police Station-Dargah Sharif, District-Bahraich, pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich.
(iii) By means of this petition i.e. Case U/s 482/378/407 No. 4539 of 2021, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Charge-Sheet No. 33-A of 2020 dated 25.04.2020, under Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 149, 332, 336, 353, 427, 34, 188 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of Public Property (Prevention of Damage) Act, 1985 and order dated 26.08.2020 whereby the cognizance of the said offences has been taken and for quashing the entire proceedings of Case No. 8557 of 2020 (State of U.P. vs. Sonu and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 492 of 2019, Police Station-Dargah Sharif, District-Bahraich, pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed 03 Charge-Sheets bearing Charge-Sheet No. 100-A of 2020 dated 26.04.2020, Charge-Sheet No. 99-A of 2020 dated 25.04.2020 and Charge-Sheet No. 33-A of 2020 dated 25.04.2020 submitted against the same petitioner on 25/26.04.2020 under more or less the same sections for the incidence which took place on the same day in the short interval. More importantly, the present petitioner was not named in any of the First Information Reports (in short F.I.R.) but he has been implicated during investigation and charge-sheet has been filed invoking section 120-B I.P.C.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since there is no evidence of prior meeting of mind of the present petitioner with other accused persons, therefore, the provisions of Section 120-B I.P.C. may not be invoked against him. So in the absence of Section 120-B I.P.C. no charge-sheet against the petitioner in other sections can be filed.
6. He has, however, also submitted that if the prosecution wants to prosecute the present petitioner in the aforesaid cases, all the aforesaid three charge-sheets could have been clubbed together and the second
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
