Raju And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2014 Latest Caselaw 7960 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 59
 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44321 of 2014
 
Applicant :- Raju And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Mithilesh Kumar Shukla,Avanish Kumar Shukla
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

Based on the same incident, an FIR was lodged by the complainant/respondent no. 2 against the applicants. After investigation, police report was submitted. As, during the investigation, it did not find the ingredients of section 395 IPC being satisfied therefore the charge sheet was filed only regarding the offence under section 323 IPC. Trial was held and the applicants have been acquitted therein by judgment dated 10.4.2014 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 4, Agra.

Based on the same incident, a complaint case was also filed alleging offence under section 395 IPC  wherein a plea based on section 210 CrPC was raised, wherein the Special Judge/ Dacoity Affected Area vide order dated 9.12.2009 ordered that as the charge sheet has been filed on the basis of the police report in the said case, therefore, there was no question of staying the proceeding of the complaint case in question. However, both the cases should be tried together. Accordingly Magistrate  was directed to commit the other case before him.

The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that for some reasons, the case on the basis of the police report was not committed to the Sessions Court in spite of the order dated 9.12.2009 of Special Judge referred herein above, and in the said later case, the applicant was acquitted under section  323 IPC, in spite of which summons were issued in the complaint case under section 395 IPC and now non-bailable warrant has been issued.

It is inexplicable as to under what circumstances, the two cases, based on same incident, one based on the police report and other a complaint case,  have proceeded separately in spite of the order dated 9.12.2009.

Let notice be issued to respondent no. 2, who shall file counter affidavit within six weeks.

Till the next date of listing, the proceeding of SST No. 258 of 2009 (Ram Nath Tyagi Vs. Raju and others) under section 395 IPC, P.S. Shahganj, district Agra shall remain stayed.

Order Date :- 3.11.2014

SKS