Allahabad High Court
Deena Nath And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 March, 2023
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9583 of 2023
Applicant :- Deena Nath And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Vijaya Shankar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
List revised.
Heard Sri Vijaya Shankar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants Deena Nath, Ram Nath, Smt. Krishna Devi, with the following prayers:-
"It is, therefore, Most Respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 19.9.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Bisalpur, Pilibhit in Complaint Case No. 1007 of 2014, Sunita Devi versus Deena Nath and others, under Sections 354, 452, 379 I.P.C., Police Station Diyoriya Kalan, District Pilibhit and also quash the order dated 2.2.2023 passed by Sessions Judge, Pilibhit in Criminal Revision No. 146 of 2022, Deena Nath and others versus State of U.P. and another.
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the effect and operation of the order dated 19.9.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Bisalpur, Pilibhit in Complaint Case No. 1007 of 2014, Sunita Devi versus Deena Nath and others, under Sections 354, 452, 379 I.P.C., Police Station Diyoriya Kalan, District Pilibhit and also quash the order dated 2.2.2023 passed by Sessions Judge, Pilibhit in Criminal Revision No. 146 of 2022, Deena Nath and others versus State of U.P. and another, during the pendency of this application before this Hon'ble Court and/or may pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, under the facts and circumstances of the case, otherwise the applicant shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury."
Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the trial court has summoned the applicants vide order dated 9.4.2015 to face trial for the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. which was not challenged by them and they applied for bail which was allowed by the trial court. It is argued that thereafter charges were framed against them on 23.2.2016, after which the opposite party no. 2 moved an application on 1.2.2019 under Section 216 Cr.P.C. for alteration of charge, copy of the same is annexure no. 8 to the affidavit, which was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bisalpur, Pilibhit on 27.6.2019, copy of the said order is annexure no. 10 to the affidavit. It is argued that against the said order a criminal revision was preferred by the opposite party no. 2 before the Sessions Judge, Pilibhit which was allowed vide order dated 27.11.2019, copy of the said order is annexure no. 11 to the affidavit. It is argued that against the said revisional order dated 27.11.2019, the applicants filed a criminal revision before the High Court which was disposed of vide order dated 23.1.2020 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 250 of 2020, Krishna Devi and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and another, copy of the said order is annexure no. 12 to the affidavit, and it was observed that the learned Magistrate to reconsider and revisit the entire issue once again and apply its own independent judicial mind over the material collected before him and passed a reasoned order without being affected by the observation made by revisional court in its order dated 27.11.2019 within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified of this order. It is argued that thereafter the trial court has allowed the application of the opposite party no. 2 moved under Section 216 Cr.P.C. and the applicants have further been summoned under Sections 452, 354, 379 I.P.C. vide order dated 19.9.2022, copy of the said order is annexure no. 13 of the affidavit. It is argued that the trial court has without application of mind and without considering the matter on merits, passed the order impugned dated 19.9.2022 inasmuch as the said application no. 95Kha was filed after an unexplained delay as the charges were framed in the matter on 23.2.2016. It is argued that the trial in the present matter is going on in which the statements of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 have been recorded whereas cross-examination of P.W.-3 is pending. It is argued that against the said order the applicants filed a criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, Pilibhit which was dismissed vide order dated 2.2.2023 and affirmed the summoning order dated 19.9.2022, copy of the said order is annexure no. 14 to the affidavit. It is argued that both the impugned orders are unsustainable in the eyes of law because on the same evidence charge has been altered by the trial court without application of judicial mind and the applicants have been summoned under Sections 354, 379, 452 I.P.C. It is argued that the present criminal proceeding has been initiated by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicants with malafide intentions as a First Information Report was lodged from the side of the applicants against the opposite party no. 2 and her family members under Section 406 I.P.C., copy of the said F.I.R. is annexure no. 15 to the affidavit, in which after investigation charge sheet has been submitted against the opposite party no. 2. It is argued that the present criminal proceedings has been initiated against the applicants with malafide intentions as a conterblast in order to build undue pressure upon them.
Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the petition and argued that the trial court, at any stage prior to delivery of judgment, can alter or add any charge. It is argued that there is no illegality or irregularity in the orders impugned which may call for any interference by this Court.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the trial court, at any stage prior to delivery of judgment, can alter or add any charge. In the present matter the trial is under progress. The trial court has applied its mind and while passing the impugned order dated 19.9.2022 has also referred to the relevant provisions of law and then allowed the application 95Kha in part and added Section 354 I.P.C. in so far as the applicants Deena Nath and Ram Nath are concerned and Section 452, 379 I.P.C. in so far as the applicants Deena Nath, Ram Nath and Smt. Krishna Devi are concerned. The revisional court while dismissing the revision of the applicants considered every aspects of the matter and affirmed the order of the trial court dated 19.9.2022. There is no illegality or irregularity in the orders impugned which may call for any interference by this Court.
In view of the above, the present application is devoid of any merit and is dismissed.
(Samit Gopal,J.)
Order Date :- 23.3.2023/Naresh
