Ramgati Maurya And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 672 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 74
 

 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4950 of 2020
 

 
Petitioner :- Ramgati Maurya And Another
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Yadav
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

This petition under Article 227 has been filed seeking to set aside order dated 26.10.2019 passed by the Magistrate declining discharge to the petitioners in Case No. 856 of 2013, State vs. Ramgati Maurya and others, arising from case crime No. 3 of 2011, under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. and affirmed in revision by the Sessions Judge, Bhadohi at Gyanpur vide judgment and order dated 08.10.2020 passed in Criminal Revision No. 107 of 2019. The petitioner also prays that the revisional order be set aside.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sunil Kumar Yadav that the impugned orders are bad inasmuch as an NCR was registered which was investigated by the police after an application was made to the Magistrate under Section 155(2), 2 years 5 months after the occurrence. Permission was granted on the said application by the Magistrate which has led to a charge sheet being filed. It is urged that the course of events and this delay makes the charges groundless, entitling the petitioner to discharge. He submits that both the court's below have failed to exercise their jurisdiction under Section 239 Cr.P.C.

Mr. S.S.Tiwari, learned A.G.A. opposes the motion to admit this petition to hearing.

This Court has perused the impugned order and the material on record. It is apparent from the record that V.K.Maurya and Rajesh Kumar Maurya have sustained multiple injuries in the incident. There are lacerated wounds and contusions. In the face of these facts, it is difficult to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charges are groundless. It is not to say that the charges are true. These, when tested at the trial, may be proved or not. But it is not a case where the trial may be scuttled through the mechanism of discharge.

This Court does not find any infirmity in the orders impugned. This petition fails and is dismissed.

Order Date :- 11.1.2021

BKM/-