Allahabad High Court
Jashwant Yadav @ Yaswant Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 June, 2022
Bench: Vikas Budhwar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2109 of 2022
Revisionist :- Jashwant Yadav @ Yaswant Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Santosh Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Heard Sri Santosh, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Sri K.P. Pathak, learned AGA for the State.
This is a revision purported to be under Sections 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. instituted by the revisionist herein wherein challenge has been made to the judgment and order dated order dated 21.04.2022 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar in Case No. 4384 /2016 (State Vs. Nagendra and others ) arising out of Case Crime No. 454 of 2010, under sections 323, 504, 506, 452 of I.P.C. Police Station Khalilabad, District- Sant Kabir Nagar.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that a first information report has been lodged by the complainant who happens to be the opposite party no.2 before Police Station Khalilabad, District- Sant Kabir Nagar being FIR No.454 of 2016, under sections 323, 504, 506, 452 of I.P.C. referable to the commission of offenses on 26.3.2016 against the revisionist and three others with an allegation that on fateful day i.e. 26.3.2016 at about 10 o'clock in the morning the accused so named in the first information report acted as a gang and they encroached into the privacy and forcefully entered into the premises of the complainant and thereafter administered beating pursuant whereto injuries were sustained by the complaint and his father namely Ramchet.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has drawn the attention of the Court towards page 36 of the paper book so as to contend that the statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. wherein the said facts so narrated in the first information report was reiterated. He has further drawn the attention of the Court towards annexure-4 so as to contend that so far as the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the father of the complainant concerned, there happens to be certain infraction and contradictions pertaining to the fact that the incident relating to administering beating in the statement of the complainant is in the house as whereas so far as according to the statement of the father of the revisionist the beating was somewhere outside the house and where the accused barged into the house.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has also drawn the attention of this Court towards page 44 of the revision so as to contend that so far as the father of the revisionist is concerned he has sustained injuries which are simple in nature. He has further drawn the attention of the Court towards page 48 of the revision so as to contend that in the statement of independent witness Sri Deenanath as well as Sri Awadhesh are concerned, they have though given their statements that the incident had occurred however, subsequently they have filed affidavit retracting from the stand taken in the affidavit. He has further argued that he had approached this Court while filing Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.12975 of 2021 Yashwant Vs. State of U.P. which was disposed of by this Court on 28.7.2021 while granting liberty to the revisionist to file bail/discharge application which was directed to be considered in accordance with law.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further contended that he had preferred a discharge application which has been rejected by virtue of the order under challenge.
In nutshell the submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is to the extent that even if the allegation so made by the prosecution is taken into face value then to the offences pertaining to Section 452 will not stand attracted in this regard.
Countering the said submissions Sri K.P. Pathak, learned AGA has argued that whatever contention which have been sought to be raised by the revisionist is concerned the same is on factual score and in the matter wherein scrutiny of an order rejecting the discharge application is before this Court then this Court of the venture into factual aspects and they would be just in the nature of preempting the trial itself. He has further argued that the reasons so accorded by the court below while rejecting discharge application are cogent and the view of court below cannot be upset by this Court while taking the different view when there is no occasion to do so.
Considering the submissions of the first rival parties this Court is of the opinion that even from the First Information Report cognizable offence is made out and further the discharge application so preferred by the revisionist has been considered and decided by the court below while giving cogent reason. Moreover, this Court in the proceedings under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. cannot act an appellate authority while taking a different view once the view so taken by the court below appears to be plausible.
Lastly, Sri Yadav has made a request to the Court that the trial may be expedited and completed within a period of six months particularly in view of the fact that specific assertion has been made in paragraph 4 of the revision that the revisionist is meritorious student and he is applied to the post of constable and document in this regard has also been appended.
Sri Pathak, learned AGA on the other hand has made a statement that the prayer so made by the revisionist appears to be innocuous particularly in view of the fact that wheat be weeded from the chaff so as to bring truth on the surface and thus this prayer can be acceded to.
In view of above, this Court has no reasons to disbelieve that the concerned court will take all endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously within a period of 8 months subject to any legal impediment.
Accordingly, the present revision is consigned to record.
Order Date :- 2.6.2022
piyush
