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

2024 Supreme(All) 224

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
Kamlesh Singh (In Adhaar Kamlesh Kumar Singh) And Another – Applicants
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another - Opposite Party
Application U/S 482 No. 10136 Of 2023
Decided On : 09-02-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Dhirendra Pratap Singh.
For the Opposite Party : G.A., Shishir Pradhan.

The court affirmed that a magistrate can take cognizance of an offence based on sufficient evidence, even if earlier charge sheets contain irregularities, and emphasized the power to summon additional accused.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 460, 482, 190, 204, 147, 148, 149, 302 - Cognizance of offences - The court upheld the cognizance taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate against all accused in a murder case, despite challenges regarding the validity of charge sheets filed by local police and CBCID - The court emphasized that sufficient evidence existed against all accused for proceeding with the case, and irregularities in earlier charge sheets did not vitiate the proceedings. (Paras 14, 30, 37)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Further investigation - The court clarified that further investigation can be conducted even after cognizance has been taken, and the magistrate is empowered to summon additional accused if sufficient material is available. (Paras 12, 36)

(C) Judicial discretion - The court reiterated that the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 should be done sparingly and only to prevent miscarriage of justice. (Paras 27.1, 27.2)

Facts of the case:
The applicants challenged the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the revisional court regarding cognizance taken in a murder case, arguing that the charge sheets were improperly filed and that the trial court failed to follow earlier directions.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the charge sheets filed by CBCID contained sufficient evidence against all accused, and the irregularities in earlier charge sheets did not invalidate the proceedings.

Issues: The main issues included the validity of the charge sheets filed by local police and CBCID, and whether the trial court followed the proper procedure in taking cognizance.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the magistrate can summon additional accused based on available evidence, and irregularities in earlier charge sheets do not prevent proceeding with the case.

Result: Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

(Saurabh Lavania, J.)

1. Third application for Interim relief filed in the Court today, is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Dhirendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Anirudha Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State and Sri Shishir Pradhan, Advocate, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2.

3. By means of instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Kamlesh Singh and Bhagauti Singh, have approached this Court impeaching the order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.9, Raebareli (in short "C.J.M.") in Case No.8528 of 2020 and have also assailed the order dated 30.09.2023 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-II, Raebareli (in short "revisional court") in Criminal Revision No.139 of 2023 as also the Charge Sheet No.369 dated 12.11.1992, Charge Sheet No.49 dated 26.11.1998 and Charge Sheet No.49A dated 12.04.2001, arising out of Case Crime No.373 of 1991 under Sections 147, 148, 149 & 302 IPC, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Raebareli.

4. Vide impugned order dated 27.03.2023, C.J.M. took cognizance against all the accused persons and abated the proceedings against Ashok Kumar Singh and Akhilesh Singh on account of the fact that during pendency of the trial these accused were expired.

5. Vide order dated 30.09.2023 the revisional court dismissed the Criminal Revision No.139 of 2023, which was filed assailing the order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the C.J.M.

6. Brief facts, which are relevant for the purposes of disposal of present application, are to the effect that after lodging of an FIR dated 27.07.1991 of murder of Iqbal Haider Raza implicating Akhilesh Singh, Kamlesh Singh, Ashok Singh (in documents on record name of the accused is also indicated as Ashok Kumar Singh) and Bhagauti Singh, the local police started the investigation. The investigation subsequently was transferred to CBCID from local police on 01.08.1991, as indicated in the application. Thereafter, investigation was again transferred from CBCID to local police on 15.10.1991. The order of transferring the investigation from CBCID to local police was assailed before this Court by means of Writ Petition No.3523 (M/B) of 1991, which was subsequently dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 01.10.1992. After dismissal of aforesaid writ petition on 01.10.1992, Charge Sheet No.369 dated 12.11.1992 was prepared by the local police, however, the same was not filed before the trial Court on account of interim order dated 13.11.1992 passed in Writ Petition No.4672 (M/B) of 1992 and this Court provided liberty to CBCID to investigate the case. After the order of this Court dated 13.11.1992, the local police on 26.07.1997 sent the entire documents/case diary to CBCID and thereafter, the CBCID started the investigation on 23.05.1998 and after due investigation, the CBCID submitted the Charge Sheet No.49 dated 26.11.1998 before the competent court of jurisdiction upon which the cognizance was taken on 02.12.1998.

7. At this stage, this Court finds it appropriate to reproduce the relevant contents of the Parcha No.25/Charge Sheet dated 26.11.1998, as available on record (Annexure No.10), which reads as under:-

^^vc rd dh dh rekeh foospuk ls ladfyr lk{; ds vk/kkj ij vfHk;qDr vf[kys'k flag iq= /kqUuh flag deys'k flag iq= /kqUuh flag v'kksd flag iq= nsosUnz flag fuoklh ykywiqj pkSgku Fkkuk egkjktxat ,oa Hkxorh flag iq= Jh nsoh cDl flag fuoklh iwjs vkneiqj Fkkuk egkjktxat tuin jk;cjsyh ds fo#) fnukad 27 tqykbZ 91 dks Jh bdcky gSnj jtk dks jkf= 8%30 cts muds ?kj esa njoktk [kqyokdj xksyh ekjdj gR;k djus dk vijk/k izFke n`f"V;k /kkjk 147] 148] 147] 302 Hkkjrh; naM fo/kku ds varxZr izFke n`f"V;k gksuk fl) gS vfHk;qDr vf[kys'k flag o deys'k flag ds fo#) fnukad 12 uoacj 92 dks LFkkuh; iqfyl }kjk ekg Qjojh esa vkjksi i= la[;k 369 fnukad 12 uoacj 92 dks izsf"kr fd;k x;k foospuk ls rkbZn ,oa rLnhd dh tkrh gSA^^

vfHk;qDr v'kksd dqekj flag iq= nsosanz flag mQZ NksVs yky flag fuoklh xzke ykyiqj pkSgku Fkkuk egkjktxat ,oa Hkxorh

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