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

2023 Supreme(Online)(All) 32482

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
CHHOTU LAL MEENA – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
A482/28804/2022



Upon submission of two different police reports, in the same case crime number, the court is under an obligation to decide the two police reports simultaneously and then discharge the accused in case the offence complained of is not established as per the papers accompanying the police reports or proceed against the applicant in case it is established.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 482 - DISCHARGE APPLICATION - REJECTION - TWO POLICE REPORTS

Fact of the Case:

The applicant filed a discharge application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., challenging the order dated 5.8.2022 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Gorakhpur in Crl. Case No. 533 of 2016, whereby his discharge application was rejected.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the discharge application filed by the applicant was misconceived and that the court below was under an obligation to decide the two police reports simultaneously and then discharge the accused in case the offence complained of is not established as per the papers accompanying the police reports or proceed against the applicant in case it is established.

Issues: Whether the court below was justified in rejecting the discharge application filed by the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court in Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali @ Deepak and Others (2013) 5 SCC 762 has held that upon submission of two different police reports, in the same case crime number, the court is under an obligation to decide the two police reports simultaneously and then discharge the accused in case the offence complained of is not established as per the papers accompanying the police reports or proceed against the applicant in case it is established.

Final Decision: The court disposed of the application and directed the court below to pass a fresh order in the light of the law noted above within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

Court No. - 66

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28804 of 2022

Applicant :- Chhotu Lal Meena

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for

applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

Challenge in this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is to the

order dated 5.8.2022 passed by Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate-II, Gorakhpur in Crl. Case No. 533 of 2016 (State

Vs. Subhash Dubey and Others) arising out of Case Crime

No.59 of 2015, under Section 147, 332, 353, 427, 504, 506

I.P.C. and Section 7 Crl. Law Amendment Act, Police Station

Shahpur, District Gorakhpur whereby the discharge application

filed by applicant has been rejected.

Record shows that initially the police had submitted a report

under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. (charge sheet) dated 16.5.2015.

Subsequently, the Investigating Officer in exercise of

jurisdiction under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. further investigated

the matter and submitted a police report dated 20.3.2017 (final

report) whereby it was stated that criminality alleged against the

applicant is not found to be established.

In view of above, applicant filed a discharge application before

court below dated 26.11.2021 seeking his challenge which has

been rejected by court below by means of impugned order dated

5.8.2022.

Perusal of impugned order dated 5.8.2022 passed by court

below will go to show that court below has rejected the

discharge application on the ground that since cognizance has

already been taken upon first charge sheet, therefore, no ground

exists to consider the discharge application filed by the

applicant.

What shall be the procedure followed by courts upon

submission of two different police reports, in same case crime

number is no longer res integra and stands settled by the

judgment of the Supreme Court in Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali

@ Deepak and Others (2013) 5 SCC 762.

Paragraph of the said report is relevant for the controversy in

hand. According the same is reproduced herein under :

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court as noted

above the discharge application filed by the applicant was

misconceived. The Court is now under an obligation to decide

the two police reports simultaneously and then discharge the

accused in case the offence complained of is not established as

per the papers accompanying the police reports or proceed

against the applicant in case it is established.

Thus no illegality has been comitted by Court below in

rejecting the discharge application.

Court below shall now pass a fresh order in the light of law

noted above within a period of four weeks from the date of

production of certified copy of this order.

With the aforesaid observation this application stands disposed

of.

Order Date :- 10.1.2023

Md Faisal

Digitally signed by :-

MOHD FAISAL

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top