Allahabad High Court
Radheshyam vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 May, 2023
Bench: Sadhna Rani (Thakur)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:112145
Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6546 of 2023
Applicant :- Radheshyam
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Chand
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhishek Chandra,Zeeshan Mazhar
Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today, the same be kept on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.
By moving this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. prayer is made to quash order dated 03.02.2023, whereby the trial court has ordered to frame charge under Section 302/149 I.P.C. also alongwith other sections, wherein the cognizance had already been taken.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that while the cognizance had already been taken earlier under Section 147, 149, 323, 504, 304, 336, 308 & 506 I.P.C., it was not the proper stage of passing the order and taking cognizance again under Section 302 I.P.C., on the application of the first informant.
It is also the version of the learned counsel for the applicant that the offence is made out under Section 304 IPC or under Section 302 IPC it was for the Court to look after the evidence of the parties. Further, it is argued that the accused persons are 11 in total and the deceased has sustained only two injuries.
But, the main argument of the counsel for the applicant here is that it was not the proper stage to take cognizance under Section 302 I.P.C. in place of Section 304 I.P.C. The merits of the order have not been challenged by the counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer.
I have gone through the impugned order, whereby the trial court at the stage of charge heard arguments of the parties on charge and heard on application of the first informant under Section 216 Cr.P.C. also whereby the prayer was made to frame charge under Section 302 IPC in place of Section 304 I.P.C. also alongwith other sections wherein the cognizance had already been taken earlier. As per the postmortem report of the deceased, two injuries were found on the corpus of the deceased and both the injuries were on the skull i.e. vital part of the body.
From the perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that it was passed at the state of charge after hearing the parties on the question of framing charge and on the application moved by the first informant under Section 216 Cr.P.C. As per Section 216 of Cr.P.C., the Court may alter charge any time before the judgment is pronounced.
From the perusal of the record, it is clear that till the date of disposal of the application under section 216 Cr.P.C. the charge had not been framed against the accused persons. The stage of framing charge and the disposal of application moved by the first informant under Section 216 Cr.P.C. was the proper stage for passing the order by the court concerned in this regard.
Thus, in the opinion of the Court, the impugned order dated 03.02.2023 was passed by the trial court at the appropriate stage, when the charge had not been framed and application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. was moved by the first informant. The argument advanced by the counsel for the applicant has no merit.
The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed, accordingly.
Order Date :- 22.5.2023
Radhika
