Mohd Taj vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 12737 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 49
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15039 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Mohd Taj
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Mohammed Jafer Husain
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

1. Heard Mr. Syed Mohammed Jafer Husain, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State.

2. Perused the record.

3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the charge sheet dated 12.10.2021 submitted in Case Crime No. 648 of 2021 under Sections 279, 304 I.P.C., Police Station Nawabganj, District Prayagraj, the Cognizance Taking Order dated 24.4.2021 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad upon aforesaid charge sheet, the order dated 28.2.2023 passed by Special Judge, M.P./M.L.A., Allahabad in Sessions Trial No. 2293 of 2021 (State Vs. Mohd. Taj) under Section 279, 304 I.P.C., P.S. Nawabganj, District Prayagraj, whereby the discharge application filed by the applicant has been rejected, as well as the entire proceeding of aforementioned Sessions Trial now pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, M.P./M.L.A., Allahabad.

4. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection by submitting that the prayer prayed for is misconceived. Since the applicant has approached the court below by seeking discharge in terms of Section 227 Cr.P.C., then, in such a situation the other prayer made by applicant qua the charge sheet, the cognizance order and the proceedings of above mentioned Sessions Trial are misconceived.

5. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant submits that the scope of the present application be confined only to the challenge to the order dated 28.2.2023, whereby the discharge application filed by applicant has been rejected.

6. At this juncture, the learned A.G.A. submits that since the order dated 28.2.2023 is a final order, therefore same is revisable in terms of Section 401 Cr.P.C. As such present application is not maintainable.

7. Upon confronted with above, the learned counsel for appellant could not dislodge the submission urged by the learned A.G.A.

8. Learned counsel for applicant referred to the judgment of Supreme Court in Prabhu Chawla Vs. State of Rajasthan (2016) 16 SCC 30 and on the basis thereof, he submits that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar.

9 Learned A.G.A. submits that from the perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that court below has concluded that in view of the material available on record, prosecution of application can be maintained. It is not a case of no evidence. He further submits that the view taken by the court below is in conformity with the 3 Judges Bench judgments of the Supreme Court in Tarun Jit Tejpal Vs. State of Goa (2020) 17 SCC 556. As such no interference is warranted by this Court in present application.

10. As a result, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

11. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 25.4.2023

Aiman