Allahabad High Court
Narendra Kumar Dubey Alias Lallu vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 3 March, 2023
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 206 of 2023
Revisionist :- Narendra Kumar Dubey Alias Lallu
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Arun Sinha
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Arun Sinha, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State respondents. Sri R.M. Shukla, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 2, same is taken on record.
2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that first information report was lodged by respondent no. 2 on 14.08.2003, as Case Crime No. 2720 of 2003, under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 I.P.C. at Police Station - Kotwali Musafirkhana, District - Sultanpur, alleging that these persons had falsely and fraudulently sold the land of uncle of the complainant by producing false persons, posing him as owner of the said land.
3. After investigation charge sheet was filed which previously assailed before this Court by means of Criminal Revision No. 27 of 2006, wherein the proceedings were stayed, but subsequently revision was disposed of on the basis of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh.
4. The revisionist in the meanwhile moved an application for discharge before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur. The said application was duly considered and allowed by means of judgment and order dated 10.11.2021.
5. Against the order dated 10.11.2021, respondent no. 2 preferred revision before the District Judge, Sultanpur. The District Judge, after considering entire material on record, allowed the said revision and remanded the matter back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for re-consideration in the light of the directions contained therein.
6. It is stated that the said remand proceedings on the application for discharge of the revisionist are still pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that once the application for discharge has been allowed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate by means of order dated 10.11.2021, himself and said order has been set aside by the District Magistrate in revision by means of order dated 12.12.2022 and matter has been remanded back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for fresh consideration, then the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall first consider and decide the application for discharge rather then proceedings with the application and framing charges and proceed further with the trial.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the prayer made by the revisionist, but have not disputed the factual aspects.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. Fact has narrated above stand undisputed that the revisionist is accused in Case Crime No. 2720 of 2003, under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 I.P.C. at Police Station - Kotwali Musafirkhana, District - Sultanpur. The revisionist has moved an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, for discharge which was considered and the said application was allowed and revisionist was discharged from facing criminal trial by means of order dated 10.11.2021. The District Judge inferferred with order dated 10.11.2021, in revision and remanded the matter back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate by means of order dated 12.12.2022.
11. The District Judge noticed that there was some variance in the facts on the basis of which discharge application was allowed, and therefore set aside the discharge order and remanded the matter back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for fresh determination. It is stated that the said discharge application is pending. It is during pendency of the discharge application, that the charges have been framed and trial proceeded with, while on the other hand, in case application for discharge is allowed, then revisionist would have to face trial and proceedings against him would be dropped.
12. Considering the peculiar facts of the present case that discharge application is still pending consideration, in fitness of the things, this Court is of the view that discharge application deserves to be considered and decided by the Chief Judicial Magistrate before proceeding further with the trial.
13. In the light of above, interference is required in the matter and hence, the charges have been framed against the revisionist are hereby quashed. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur is directed to consider and decide the discharge application of the revisionist in terms of the order of the District Judge, Sultanpur dated 12.12.2022, expeditiously, say within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this order. Once the application for discharge is decided the trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed with the trial in accordance with law. It is made clear that benefit of this order has been given only to the revisionist, in the Case Crime No. 2720 of 2003.
14. The revision stands allowed.
Order Date :- 3.3.2023
A. Verma
(Alok Mathur, J.)
