IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Vikas Budhwar, J.
Raju Alias Rajesh Kumar - Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Opposite Parties
Criminal Revision No. - 3037 of 2021
Decided On : 25-11-2021
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 354-A, 342, 323, 308, 342, 323 and 286 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Sections 397/401, 6, 9, 16, 26, 173, 204, 190, 207/208, 227, 228, 161 and 319 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 - Section 351 - Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Voluntarily causing hurt - Alleged morning, the O.P. no.2 along with her husband being was in their agricultural field with regard to farming activity relating to sowing relevant point of time son R/o resident P.S. Ekdil, District Etawah along with one unknown person came on a motorcycle armed with rifle and pistol and started manhandling O.P. started screaming and same gathered attention of other persons.
Finding of the Court:
Applicant was confronted with statement of PW-2 being husband of O.P. no.2 showing name of applicant, then counsel for applicant could not dispute said fact, rather to the contrary - Learned counsel for applicant has sought to argue this much that applicant has not committed any criminality - Jurisdictional error committed by court below in summoning revisionist - Learned counsel for revisionist only argued on factual score - Court to go into the factual issues which cannot be gone into in present facts of case as this court is of firm opinion that there exist sufficient material which itself shows that powers exercised by court below while summoning applicants, does not suffer from any illegality and infirmity - Learned counsel for revisionist has also not disputed legal proposition so culled out by Hon’ble Apex Court in relation to scope and ambit of powers u/s 319 Cr.P.C. and further he has not been able to bring on record any material to show that findings recorded by court below while summoning her suffers from any perversity or illegality.
Result : Revision is dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. This is a revision purported to be under Section 397/401 of CrPC challenging the order dated 4.3.2021 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court No.2, Etawah in Session Trial No. 279 of 2017 (State Vs. Manoj Kumar @ Chhange) arising out of Case Crime no.520 of 2016, under Sections 342, 323, 308 IPC, P.S.- Ekdil, District - Etawah.
2. Heard Sri Prem Prakash, learned counsel for the revisionist, as well as Sri K.K. Rajbhar, the learned A.G.A.
3. In view of the order so sought to be passed, there is no need to issue notice to O.P. no.2.
4. Brief facts of the case shorn off unnecessary details are that an FIR was lodged by O.P. no.2 on 24.11.2016 before the Police Station-Ekdil, District Etawah being Case Crime no.520 of 2016, purported to be under Section 354-A, 342, 323, 286 IPC, 1860 against the accused Rajeev son of Shiv Ram Singh, Chhote son of Kayam Singh, Chhange Singh son of Bhogi Ram and unknown persons with regard to the allegations referable to the incident, which occurred on 24.11.2016, whereby it was alleged at about 7:00 in the morning, the O.P. no.2 along with her husband being Kamlesh son of Giriwar Singh, resident of Ramnagar, P.S. Ekdil, Etawah was in their agricultural field with regard to farming activity relating to sowing. At the relevant point of time, Sri Rajeev son of Shiv Raj Singh, R/o Nagla Barra, Chhote son of Kayam Singh resident of Nagla Pancchi, Chhange son of Bhogiram resident of Buapur, P.S. Ekdil, District Etawah along with one unknown person came on a motorcycle armed with rifle and pistol and started manhandling the O.P. no.2, who started screaming and the same gathered attention of other persons, present in the field and the husband of O.P. no.2 tried to get her released from the clutches of the aforesaid accused, then they took him away and administered beating while taking him on their motorcycle to an unknown place and when the aforesaid accused were confronted with some people, including one Santosh Chaudhary and Shivam Chaudhary, who were standing nearby, then on account of their resistance, then accused left the husband of O.P. no.2 in deplorable condition and they also fired in air.
5. Thereafter the Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet dated 14/15.8.2017 under Sections 342, 323, 308 IPC in Case Crime no. 520 of 2016, P.S. Ekdil, District Etawah before the court concerned against Manoj Kumar only, and not against the applicant herein.
6. It appears that PW-1 being the O.P. no.2 gave her statement on 8.3.2018, wherein she had specifically taken the name of Rajeev son of Shivraj Singh resident of Nagla Bari, Ekdil, Etawah, Chhote son of Kayam Singh resident of Nagla Panchhi, Ekdil, District Etawah and Chhange son of Bhogiram, resident of Buapur, Ekdil, District Etawah and an unknown person supporting the same incident, which was narrated in the FIR dated 24.11.2016.
7. Kamlesh, the husband of O.P. no.2 also got his statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC on 17.8.2019, wherein he specifically took the name of applicant herein with regard to commission of the offences resulting to lodging of the FIR dated 24.11.2016.
8. Being aggrieved against non-submission of charge sheet against the applicant, the O.P. no.2, thereafter preferred an application under Section 319 CrPC dated 30.9.2019 before the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Etawah in S.T. No. 279 of 2017. The aforesaid application so submitted by O.P. No.2 under Section 319 CrPC has been allowed by virtue of order dated 4.3.2021 passed by court below, while issuing summons to the revisionist under Sections 342, 323, 308 IPC.
9. The order dated 4.3.2021 passed by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court No.2, Etawah in Session Trial No. 279 of 2017 (State Vs. Manoj Kumar @ Chhange) arising out of Case Crime no.520 of 2016, under Sections 342, 323, 308 IPC, P.S.-Ekdil, District -Etawah.
10. The moot question, which falls for consideration before this Court in the proceedings u/s 397/401 of Cr.P.C
All India Bank Officers' Confederation etc. v. Union of India & Ors.
Ameer Trading Corporation Ltd. v. Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd.
Anju Chaudhary v. Sate of U.P. & Anr.
Brindaban Das & Ors. v. State of West Bengal
Dilawar Babu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra
Feroze N. Dotivala v. P.M. Wadhwani & Ors.
Guriya @ Tabassum Tauquir & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr.
Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories v. Dy. Labour Commissioner & Ors.
Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Joginder Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr.
Kalyan Kumar Gogoi v. Ashutosh Agnihotri & Anr.
Lal Suraj @ Suraj Singh & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand
M/S. Mahalakshmi Oil Mills v. Stare of A.P.
Michael Machado & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi & Ors.
Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya
Omkar Namdeo Jadhao & Ors v. Second Additional Sessions Judge Buldana & Anr.
P. Kasilingam & Ors. v. P.S.G. collage of Technology & Ors.
Palanisamy Gounder & Anr. v. State, represented by Inspector of Police
Podda Narayana & Ors. v. State of A.P.
Ponds India Ltd. (merged with H.L. Limited) v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, Lucknow
Pyare Lal Bhargava v. The State of Rajasthan
Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr.
Ram Singh & Ors. v. Ram Niwas & Anr.
Ram Swaroop & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan
Ramnarayan Mor & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra
S. Mohammad Ispahani Vs. Yogendra Chandak and Others
Sarabjit Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr.
Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration
Sohan Lal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan
State (Delhi Administration) v. Laxman Kumar & Ors.
State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh
State of Karnataka v. L. Munishwamy & Ors.
State of M.P. v. Dr. Krishna Chandra Saksena
State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj
Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia
Suman v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Suresh v. State of Maharashtra
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.