Constable Balister Rai And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 6290 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Constable Balister Rai And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 March, 2024

Author: Rajeev Misra

Bench: Rajeev Misra

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:38306
 
Court No. - 83
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1376 of 2018
 

 
Revisionist :- Constable Balister Rai And 2 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Shivendra Kumar Gupta,Siya Ram Verma
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
 

1. Heard Mr. Shivendra Kumar Gupta, the learned counsel for revisionists, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Amit Kumar Upadhaya, the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party-2.

2. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 24.01.20218 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad in Case No. 3552 of 2017 (State Vs. Constable Brijendra Yadav & Others), Police Station Civil Lines, District Allahabad, whereby, the discharge application filed by revisionists has been rejected.

3. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. for State and the learned counsel representing opposite party-2 have invited the attention of the court to the order dated 25.08.2017 passed by court below, copy of which is on record at page 82(E) of the paper book. With reference to above, they submit that since charges have already been framed against revisionists vide aforesaid order, therefore, the discharge application dated 11.10.2017 filed by revisionists was itself misconceived. Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ratilal Bhanji Mithani Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 1979 (2) SCC 179. They submit that once the charges have been framed then question of discharge is academic. As such, present criminal revision has been rendered infructuous.

4. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for revisionists could not overcome the same.

5. Having heard, the learned counsel for revisionists, the learned A.G.A. for State, the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party-2 and upon perusal of record and coupled with the fact that since the charges have already been framed against revisionists vide framing of charge order dated 25.08.2017. Therefore, the discharge prayed for by revisionists is wholly misconceived and cannot be considered after the framing of charge order has been passed.

6. In view of above, the present revision fails and is liable to be dismissed.

7. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 1.3.2024

Imtiyaz