Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
Mohammad Shahid Siddiqui – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Application U/s 482/378/407 No. 3235 of 2020
Decided On : 06-12-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 333, 353, 307 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Quash of Criminal proceedings - Grievous hurt - Attempt to Murder - Petitioner a lawyer practicing primarily in District and Sessions Court who was murdered by respondent No. 2 in broad daylight within Civil Court premises of District - Respondent no. 2 who is a police officer used his service revolver to commit crime in question by firing on chest of deceased which injury proved fatal and caused death on spot.
Finding of the Court:
No charge sheet had been submitted, no cognizance has been taken, and no summons order was issued, there was no committal of trial to Sessions Court file being tied, when case come up before District Judge concerned he made the observations in impugned order that Court had directed that both proceedings should be held jointly - There is no observation of seven Judges Bench that trial shall be held jointly - There is only a direction for transfer of proceedings in both case crime numbers to District and Sessions Court - Learned trial court in its order challenged in this petition, has observed that no charge sheet has been file in Case Crime and one of named accused had died and others were unknown persons - Court opinion that Hon'ble Supreme Court having considered entire law on subject with regard to procedure to be followed by learned trial court to determine whether a case has to be conducted as a joint trial or as a separate trial in case of a cross FIR.
Result: Petition is disposed of
JUDGMENT :
SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
1. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11.11.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raebareli and praying for trial of Sessions Trial No. 429 of 2015, State of U.P. vs. Shailendra Singh and Sessions Trial No. 473 of 2015 and State of U.P. vs. Rashid Siddiqui be expedited in the interest of justice.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the son of the petitioner was a lawyer practicing primarily in the District and Sessions Court, Prayagraj, who was murdered by the respondent No. 2 in broad daylight within the Civil Court premises of District Prayagraj on 11.03.2015. The respondent no. 2 who is a police officer used his service revolver to commit the crime in question by firing on the chest of the deceased which injury proved fatal and caused death on the spot.
3. It has been submitted that the crime in question was committed in connivance with respondent no. 3, namely, Rashid Siddiqui, who had earlier threatened the deceased son of the petitioner, FIR No. 161 of 2016 under Section 302 IPC was registered against the respondent nos. 2 and 3 at police station Karnal Ganj, District Allahabad which was later renumbered as Case Crime No. 183 of 2015.
4. A counter case was also registered after two days by the wife of the respondent no. 2 on 13.03.2015 at Police Station Karnal Ganj under Section 333, 353, 307 IPC against the deceased son of the petitioner and some unknown persons which was later renumbered as Case Crime No. 193 of 2015. Since, the incident had occurred in broad daylight within the Civil Court premises and it had serious repercussions on the security of District Court, the High Court at Allahabad took Suo Moto cognizance of the incident and a Public Interest Litigation was registered In Re vs. Zila Adhivakta Sangh, Allahabad bearing PIL No. 15895 2015, so that the entire matter could be considered holistically and appropriate directions be issued thereafter.
5. On 28.08.2015, the seven Judges Bench transferred the proceedings of Case Crime No. 183 of 2015 and Case Crime No. 193 of 2015 to the Sessions Court at Raebareli. On 03.03.2016, the Court also directed expediting the trial in a petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. bearing petition no. 1092 of 2016 by the present petitioner Mohd. Shahid Siddiqui, the father of the deceased.
6. During trial an application was filed before the trial court by the DGC on 01.02.2019 allegedly at the behest of the respondent, seeking stay of Sessions Trial No. 429 of 2015 on the ground that file of connected Case Crime No. 193 of 2015 is unavailable. However, the learned trial court proceeded to record the statement of the witnesses and sought a report in respect of the alleged misplacing of file in Case Crime No. 193 of 2015 from the Chief Judicial Magistrate. On enquiry, by the petitioner also, it come out that even after a period of four and a half years, the investigation in the aforesaid Case Crime No. 193 of 2015 had not been completed and no charge sheet had been filed.
7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigating agency was dragging its feet only to help the respondent no. 2 as well as other co-accused. The petitioner again approached this Court praying for an order of expeditious disposal of trial in Case Crime No. 183 of 2015. The Court passed an order on 02.05.2019 expediting the trial. The Court also rejected the third bail application of respondent no. 2. Despite efforts being made by the petitioner by making applications to the Superintendent of Police, Prayagraj to expedite the investigation in Case Crime No. 193 of 2015 and to get the charge sheet submitted expeditiously, no heed was paid by the police, and no report was submitted.
8. Learned AGA for the State at this time has interjected on the basis of written instructions on his file and as per counter affidavit to say that the investigation has been concluded and a final report No. 283 of 2021, dated 22.08.202
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
