Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
Ramesh Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Application U/s 482 No. 4022 of 2021
Decided On : 07-05-2022
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 302, 201, 120-B and 216 - Quash of Criminal proceedings - Investigation - Incomplete investigation - Offence of Murder and conspiracy - If the material/evidence is credible and relevant for taking the trial court on any certain conclusion, the same may be accepted by the Magistrate/trial court.
Finding of the Court:
Proceedings of trial court are futile as it cannot take cognizance of the offence unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under Section 193 Cr.P.C. - no specific bar to collect the evidence and file the same after filing the charge- prosecution could not explain properly the aforesaid chain of events, but at the same time, Court conscious about the fact that even if there is any procedural lapse or technical error in preparation of the charge sheet, which is curable under the law and such error does not appear to be manifest error and is not causing any miscarriage of justice to the applicant as ample opportunity would be provided to the applicant/defence at the time of trial as per law, therefore, invoking powers enshrined under Section 482 Cr.P.C. charge-sheet and proceedings so challenged may not be quashed.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard Sri Anupam Mehrotra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anurag Verma, learned AGA-I for the State as well as Sri H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Akash Prasad and Sri Amitav Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 6/complainant.
2. This petition/application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the orders of cognizance and commitment of the case to the Court of Session dated 10.01.2020 (Annexure No. 1 and 2); police report/charge-sheet no. 01/2020 dated 25.12.2019 (Annexure No. 3) and further proceedings thereto. As an interim prayer, further proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 11 of 2020, order of cognizance as well as commitment order dated 10.01.2020 and the trial of the present case have been prayed to be stayed during pendency of the present petition.
3. Sri Anupam Mehrotra has assailed the aforesaid orders saying that the impugned police report/charge sheet no. 01 of 2020 dated 25.12.2019 (Annexure No. 3) was filed on the basis of incomplete investigation in Case Crime No. 366 of 2019 lodged at Police Station Harchandpur, Raebareli (under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 302, 201, 120-B & 216 IPC), wherein the applicant and fifteen more accused persons have been implicated, therefore, such police report may not be termed as police report strictly in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C. He has also assailed the order dated 10.1.2020 whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raebareli has taken cognizance of the charge sheet committing the case for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge without ascertaining and verifying the fact as to whether the police report/charge sheet has been properly filed or not. As per Sri Mehrotra, since the police report/charge sheet has been filed on the basis of incomplete investigation and such fact is clear from the charge sheet itself, therefore, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate instead of taking cognizance of said charge sheet and committing the case for trial, he should have ordered either for further investigation or should wait till investigation completes and all relevant material is placed before the court.
4. Brief facts to consider the prayers of the present applicant are that one FIR was lodged by opposite party no. 6, which has been registered as Crime No. 366 of 2019, originally under Sections 302 & 201 IPC and was subsequently converted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 302, 201, 120- B & 216 IPC, Police Station Harchandpur, Raebareli against Suresh Yadav, the owner of Somu Dhaba and the unidentified staff members of Somu Dhaba. The alleged incident occurred on 9.10.2019 at 22:00 hours at Somu Dhaba and in the FIR in question, it has been alleged that Aditya Pratap Singh alias Ravi, son of Pradeep Kumar Singh, the complainant (the opposite party no. 6 herein) was at the house of his 'bua' (the sister of Ravi's father, Pradeep Kumar Singh, the complainant/opposite party no 6 herein) at Jankipuram, Kanpur Road, P.S. Kotwali Sadar, Raebareli in the night of 9.10.2019 when at around 10:00 PM, Ravi on being called by three persons (Manish Singh, Saurabh Singh and Ajay Singh), went to meet them on a motorcycle (No. UP 33 N 7162). That night, when Ravi did not return to the house of his bua, his bua tried the whole night to contact Ravi on his mobile phone but could not contact him. On the next day, at 7:00 AM, the call of Ravi's bua on Ravi's mobile phone was answered by the S.H.O., Police Station Harchandpur, Raebareli, who told Ravi's bua that the person, the call on whose mobile phone is being answered, his dead body has been found near a godown near Garhi Khas (at Raebareli) and the police has taken the dead body to the District Hospital, Raebareli. On being informed by Raj Kumari Singh about what the S.H.O. told her, Pradeep Kumar Singh (the father of Ravi/the complainant/the opposite party no 6 herein) reached the District Hospital, Raebareli where he found his son lying dead. Thereupon, Pradeep
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
