SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(All) 1350

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.
Vidya Sagar – Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Opposite Parties
Criminal Revision No. 3588 Of 2017
Decided On : 03-11-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Revisionist : Lok Nath Shukla.
For the Opposite Parties : Km. Nisha Singh, Prem Chandra.

The accused has the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses before framing of charges.

Headnote:

Pleading - Criminal Revision - Sections 379, 427 I.P.C. - [Section 245(2) Cr.P.C.]

Fact of the Case:

The complainant filed a complaint against the accused for theft and criminal mischief. The accused moved an application for discharge under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. claiming false implication.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the discharge application, stating that the grounds taken in the application are matters of evidence and can only be adjudicated after evidence is adduced.

Issues: The main issue was whether the accused should be discharged at the pre-trial stage under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused has the right to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses at the stage of evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. and before framing of charge.

Final Decision: The revision was dismissed, and the accused was given the liberty to move a bail application if not already enlarged on bail.

JUDGMENT :

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.)

1. Pleading have already been exchanged between the parties.

2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred by the accusedrevisionist against the order dated 05.08.2017 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Jaunpur, in Criminal Case No. 5690 of 2017 (Jagnarayan Vs. Sher Bahadur) under Sections 379, 427 I.P.C., P.S.- Barsati, District- Jaunpur, whereby discharge application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. moved by the accused-revisionist has been dismissed.

3. Heard the submissions of Sri Lok Nath Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Deepak Kapoor, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Prem Chandra, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and perused the record.

4. The brief facts relevant for present revision are that the complainant filed present complaint against the revisionist and four other accused persons on 02.09.2005 with averment that on 17.05.2005, he was going towards her village in the evening from District Court, Jaunpur, after disembarking from a train, when he reached near border of his village around 07:00 P.M., he heard some noise from his bamboo cluster situated at Plot No.234/ 1.30. He reached near his bamboo cluster and found that the accused persons were cutting bamboo from said cluster and accused Shravan Kumar was carrying the cut bamboos on his shoulder. He cried and shouted to catch them, whereupon the witnesses Deepak and Ajay Prakash reached the spot, however, the accused persons made their good escape. In the meanwhile, accused persons carried away 10 bamboos which were cut from his cluster amounting to Rs. 500 and left two cut bamboos on the spot, due to which he suffered Rs. 400 more loss. He got a written report prepared next day, when he reached the court and produced the same before Additional S.P. Jaunpur, the complaint was registered before trial court. The complainant examined himself under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of witnesses Deepak and Ajay were recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. in support of complainant's version. The learned court below summoned the revisionist under Section 379 and 427 I.P.C. vide order dated 31.03.2006. Feeling aggrieved by the summoning order, the revisionist preferred a Criminal Revision No. 4210 of 2006 (Vidya Sagar Vs. State of U.P. and another) before this Court which was decided vide order dated 07.10.2016. Thereafter, present revisionist moved an application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. for discharge before court below on ground that he has been falsely implicated in the case. The complainant did not lodge any F.I.R. deliberately on pretext of being sick at that time. His application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C moved before court below was dismissed and thereafter he filed present complaint. There is an old enmity between the accused on the one hand and the complainant as well as father of the witness Deepak, namely Balraj on the other hand and due to this enmity many criminal and civil litigations are proceeding between the accused applicant and complainant and father of these witnesses. The complainant had assaulted accused on 15.07.1996 regarding which a criminal case S.T. 419 of 2010 State Vs Hubanarayan is pending before Special Judge, E.C. Act, Jaunpur and another case was lodged by Tirthraj, the brother of accused applicant against Usardan and others under Section 147, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. and a criminal revision was also preferred in that case. A civil suit is also proceeding between the accused-applicant and co-accused Sharvan Kumar, Praveen Kumar and Ram Prakash. Apart from that a criminal case is pending in the court against the accused Sher Bahadur. In that case, this is not possible that the accused-applicant would commit theft along with co-accused. The complainant has filed present complaint on creating a false story in collusion with co-accused of this case, no bamboo cluster is existing in the plot No. 234/1.30 of the complainant, he is neither owner nor in poss

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      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

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top