Allahabad High Court
Abhinav Pandey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 6 May, 2024
Author: Shamim Ahmed
Bench: Shamim Ahmed
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36504
Court No. - 27
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 481 of 2024
Revisionist :- Abhinav Pandey
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ajeet Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
1. This revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 27.02.2024 passed by the Court of Additional Session Judge, Court No.37, Barabanki in Session Trial No. 2493/2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 801/2019, under Section 376, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki, whereby the application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
2. Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Alok Kumar Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has already approached before this Court by filing a application Under Section 482/378/407 No. 2683 of 2021: Abhinav Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and another challenging the charge-sheet as well as cognizance order and this Court vide order dated 17.11.2021 dismissed the aforesaid application as withdrawn with no liberty to file fresh.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submit that thereafter the applicant filed discharge application, which was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 27.02.2024.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submit that while rejecting the discharge application vide order dated 27.02.2024 has at all not considered the evidence as well as factual aspect produced before the court below. He further submits that the entire allegation of rape levelled against the applicant is false and fabricated and lodged with the enmity and with mala fide intention and in support of his argument learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance of Hon'ble Apex Court Judgment in the case of Sonu Alias Subhash Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR Online 2021 SC 120, Maheshwar Tigga vs. The state of Jharkhand AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 4535, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2019 (3) SCC (CRI) 903, Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra and Other. (2019) 18 Supreme Court Cases 191, Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 675. Uday vs. State of Karnataka (2003) 4 Supreme court Cases 46, Jugal Chandra SAIKIA vs. State of Assam & Another (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 59, Mandar Deepak Pawar vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 649 and submits that the impugned order is bad in the eye of law and the revision may be allowed.
6. Sri Alok Kumar Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the argument of learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the revisionist has already approached this Court for challenging the charge-sheet as well as cognizance order in the application filed Under Section 482/378/407 No. 2683 of 2021: Abhinav Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and another and a co-ordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the application as withdrawn with no liberty to file fresh and when the applicant could not get any relief, he approached the trial court and filed the discharge application and the trial court vide impugned order dated 27.02.2024, after considering the entire material before the trial court, dismissed the discharge application by a reasoned and speaking order, thus no interference is required by this Court, exercising the revisional power of this Court. As, prima facie offence is made out against the revisionist, the revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
7. After considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the impugned order dated 27.02.2024 and the order passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 17.11.2021 in the application Under Section 482/378/407 No. 2683 of 2021: Abhinav Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and another, this Court is of the view that the discharge application, which was filed by the applicant was rightly rejected after considering the entire evidence available on record and a detailed order has been passed. The judgment cited by the revisionist is totally distinguishable on the present facts and circumstances of the case, thus this Court is not inclined to interfered in the present revision. The revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
8. The trial court concerned is directed to conclude the trial within one year from today without fail.
9. The Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned trial court for its compliance.
Order Date :- 06.05.2024
Arvind
