Allahabad High Court
Narayan Das Upadhyay vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 January, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 76
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20241 of 2020
Applicant :- Narayan Das Upadhyay
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Subhash Chandra Tiwari,Shakti Shanker Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Rai
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Subhash Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Santosh Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 06.11.2020 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Jaunpur in S.T. No. 365 of 2013 (State vs. Narayan Das and others)under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 336, 452, 307 and 302 I.P.C. and section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Khuthan, District Jaunpur and also a prayer is made to stay the proceedings in this case till the disposal of this application.
Submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the court below has passed the impugned order dated 6.11.2020 rejecting the application of the applicant 182 Kha erroneously against the law laid-down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir and others vs. State of M.P., [2001 (42) ACC 479] in which it has been decided that cross case arising out of same incident are to be tried and disposed of by the same court by pronouncing judgments on the same day. In the light of the law laid-down in the case of Sudhir (Supra), it is argued by him that the opposite party no. 2 had lodged FIR as case crime no. 172 of 2013 under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 336, 452, 307 and 302 IPC and section 7 Crl. Law Amendment Act, P.S. Khuthan, District Jaunpur and for the same incident, a cross FIR had been lodged as case crime no. 172(A) of 2013 under section 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Khuthan, District Jaunpur. The criminal proceedings pertaining to case crime no. 172 (A) of 2013 were pending before the Court of Magistrate as the same was not committed to the Court of Sessions despite the said case being cross case of crime no. 172 of 2013. He has shown order of the then Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5 Jaunpur dated 17.3.2015 in which it was directed to the Judicial Magistrate-II, Jaunpur that he should commit the case pertaining to case crime no. 172 (A) of 2013 to the Court of Sessions so that both the cases could be decided together but without ensuring the compliance of the said order, the trial court in the present case i.e. S.T. No. 365 of 2013 (State vs. Narayan Das and others) proceeded ahead to record the statements and in this case, the stage of recording statements of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. has reached.
From the side of the learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, reliance has been placed upon the order of this Court passed in Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 1358 of 2015 dated 30.1.2015 in which there was a direction issued in the present case i.e. S.T. No. 365 of 2013 for expeditious disposal by the trial court to conclude the same within a period of eight months and it is argued that in the light of this order that there was a direction of this Court, because of which the trial court in order to decide the said session trial expeditiously, had passed the impugned order and that the applicant wants to get the trial of the present session trial delayed.
This Court is not convinced with the argument made by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 in view of the settled law of Hon'ble Supreme Court cited above as case crime no. 172 of 2013 and 172 (A) of 2013 are cross cases, hence their trials need to be done by same court and judgment needs to be pronounced by the same court on the same day.
The impugned order shows that the same has been passed rejecting the prayer made by the applicant on the ground that the present Session Trial was at the stage of statement to be recorded of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C and that the application has been moved with a prayer for delaying the proceedings in the said session trial. He was unable to disclose about the stage of other cases trial. The said ground cannot be treated to be a genuine ground in view of law laid-down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir (Supra), which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant.
In view of the above, this is found to be a fit case in which interference is required. The impugned order dated 06.11.2020 is set aside. Application stands allowed.
The trial court is directed to ensure that the case arising out of crime no. 172 (A) of 2013 is got committed to the court of sessions and also stands transferred to it for being decided together with the present session trial expeditiously.
Order Date :- 19.1.2021
AU
