Allahabad High Court
Asim And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 May, 2024
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:81511
Court No. - 77
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3143 of 2023
Revisionist :- Asim And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ambreen Masroor,Sadrul Islam Jafri,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gaurav Singh,Mohd. Irfan
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. N.I. Jafri, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S.I. Jafri, the learned counsel for revisionists, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Mohd. Irfan, the learned counsel representing opposite party-2.
2. Perused the record.
3. Challenge in this criminal revision is to the order dated 18.04.2023 passed by Sessions Judge, Rampur in Sessions Trial No. 112 of 2022 (State Vs. Gagandeep and Others), under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC, Police Station-Swar, District-Rampur, whereby application dated 18.04.2023, under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by first informant/opposite party-2 has been allowed. Consequently, the prospective accused i.e. the revisionists herein have been summoned by Court below to face trial in aforementioned Sessions Trial.
4. The issue involved in present criminal revision is a short but crisp one. The prospective accused i.e. revisionists herein were nominated as named accused in the FIR dated 04.09.2017 lodged by first informant Barkat Ali and registered as Case Crime No. 0683 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 302 and 34 IPC, Police Station-Swar, District-Rampur. However, Investigating Officer on the basis of material collected by him during course of investigation came to the conclusion that complicity of all the named accused is not established in the crime in question but of two other persons not named in the FIR namely Gagandeep Singh and Karanpreet Singh. He, accordingly, submitted the police report dated 19.01.2018 in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., whereby aforementioned not named accused were charge sheeted under Section 302 IPC, whereas all the named accused were exculpated.
5. After submission of aforementioned charge sheet, the trial of charge sheeted accused commenced by way of Sessions Trial No. 112 of 2022 (State Vs. Gagandeep and Others), under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC, Police Station-Swar, District-Rampur. During the course of trial, the prosecution adduced one prosecution witness namely PW-1 Barkat Ali (first informant). This witness, who is an eye witness of the occurrence, in his deposition before Court below has stated about the presence of the named accused at the time and place of occurrence.
6. After the statement-in-chief/examination-in-chief of aforesaid witnesses were recorded, prosecution/first informant filed an application dated 18.04.2023 alleging therein that since as per the testimony of PW-1, the complicity of named accused in the crime in question is also established, therefore, they be also summoned to face trial. Thereafter, Court below considered the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in the light of the material on record and particularly, the deposition of PW-1. Upon evaluation, Court below came to the conclusion that since complicity of all the named accused in the crime in question stands established as per the deposition of PW-1, therefore, Court below allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution vide order dated 18.04.2023.
7. Thus feeling aggrieved by the above order dated 18.04.2023, the prospective accused i.e. the revisionists herein have now approached this Court by means of present criminal revision.
8. Mr. N.I. Jafri, the learned Senior Counsel for revisionists contends that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order impugned cannot be sustained. To buttress his submission, he contends that the father of prospective accused i.e. revisionists 1 and 2 namely Saidul Hasan was murdered by the first informant along with his brother. He, therefore, contends that present criminal proceedings are malicious. It is thus urged that in view of above, it cannot be said that such strong and cogent evidence has emerged against revisionists in the light of the deposition of PW-1 that they could have been summoned by Court below. As such, the order impugned is not only illegal but arbitrary and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside by this Court.
9. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing first informant -opposite party-2 vehemently opposed the present criminal revision. They contend that the revisionists i.e. the prospective accused have been summoned by Court below under Section 149 IPC also. Once the complicity of the prospective accused i.e. the revisionists herein is established to the extent that they were present at the time and place of occurrence, therefore, the fact as to whether, the revisionists are innocent or any active or passive role was played by them in the commission of crime in question becomes irrelevant.
10. On the above premise, it is thus urged that no good ground for interference is made out and therefore, the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.
11. When confronted with above, the learned Senior Counsel for revisionist could not overcome the same.
12. Having heard, the learned Senior Counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State, the learned counsel representing first informant and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that since the complicity of proposed accused i.e. revisionist herein at the time and place of occurrence is established as per the deposition of PW-1. In view of above, it cannot be said that order impugned is illegal nor it can be said that no prima-facie case is made out for summoning the revisionists to face trial. The order impugned is in conformity with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sandeep Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 888.
13. In view of above, the present criminal revision fails and is liable to be dismissed.
14. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.5.2024
Vinay
