Court No. - 86

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1284 of 2021

Revisionist :- Pankaj Chaubey

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Revisionist :- Amarnath Tripathi

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Suraj Kumar Singh

Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for

opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. appearing for State and

perused the record.

This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been

filed against the impugned judgement and order dated

10.02.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court

No.1, Varanasi rejecting discharge application bearing paper

no.11Kha filed by the revisionist under Section 302

I.P.C.,Police Station Sarnath, District Varanasi in Session Trial

No.266 of 2020 (State Versus Pankaj Chaubey) arising out of

Case Crime No.628 of 2019.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the

applicant has moved discharge application through counsel on

28.09.2020 under Section 227 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the

revisionist has been falsely implicated in the present case and

no offence, whatsoever, was committed by him. There is no

proper explanation given by the informant regarding lodging of

the F.I.R. with an inordinate delay. There are contradictions in

respect of timing of the incident in the statement of the eye-

witnesses. He has further argued that learned trial court has

wrongly rejected the discharge application filed by the applicant

and framed the charges in a most illegal and arbitrary manner

and not sustainable in law and therefore, the same are liable to

be quashed by this Court. Learned counsel for the revisionist in

support of his contention has also cited two judgements of

Hon'ble Apex Court in P.Vijayan Versus State of Kerala and

another, AIR 2010 Supreme Court 663

and

M.E.Shivalingamurthy Versus Central Bureau of

Investigation, Bengalure,2020 (2) SCC 768.

Learned A.G.A.appearing for the State and learned counsel for

the opposite party no.2 have opposed prayer of the revisionist.

They have stated that revisionist while in the jail has filed an

application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for lodging F.I.R.

against other accused persons for the same incident which was

rejected by lower courts below. Against said orders, Criminal

Misc. Application (U/S 482 Cr.P.C.) No.16914 of 2020 was

preferred before this Court which was finally disposed of vide

order dated 23.02.2021 and orders of learned Magistrate and

revisional court were set aside. This Court has directed learned

Magistrate concerned to pass fresh orders on the application

under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Ram Gopal Singh and others,

opposite parties therein aggrieved by the order dated

23.02.2021 passed by this Court preferred Petition(s) for

Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2502 of 2021 before

Hon'ble Apex Court in which following order dated 26.03.2021

was passed:

"1 Issue notice.

2 Mr Siddharth Dave, learned Senior Counsel, waives service

on behalf of the second respondent."

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has cited judgement

of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Bhawna Bai Versus

Ghanshyam and others (2020) 2 Supreme Court Cases 217

and argued that considering discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C.

court has only to consider as to whether there is no sufficient

ground for proceeding against the accused or not. In the present

case there is sufficient evidence on record to show prima facie,

commission of offence by the revisionist in the form of

statement of the witnesses and other supporting evidences. The

impugned order dated 10.02.2021 passed by the trial judge is

just and proper and do not call for any interference by this

Court.

The submissions made by the revisionist's counsel call for

adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately

adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so

even the submissions made on points of law can also be more

app