Allahabad High Court
Pawan @ Chhotu And 3 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:81470
Court No. - 77
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3181 of 2023
Revisionist :- Pawan @ Chhotu And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Amit Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Bahadur Singh,Vijay Kumar
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Amit Srivastava, the learned counsel for revisionists, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. R.B. Singh, the learned counsel representing opposite party-2.
2. Rejoinder affidavit filed by the learned counsel for revisionists in Court today, is taken on record.
3. Perused the record.
4. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 06.05.2023 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Court No.-2, Aligarh, whereby the application (Paper No. 7-Kha) filed by the accused revisionists before Court below has been rejected.
5. Perusal of the application (Paper No.7-Kha) filed by revisionists will go to show that by means of aforesaid application, it was pleaded by the revisionists before Court below that as per the material on record, no charge under Section 307 IPC is made out against revisionists. Therefore, the charge so framed under Section 307 IPC against accused revisionists is illegal, as such, the same be dropped.
5. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of aforementioned application (Paper No. 7Kha) filed by revisionists before Court below.
6. Learned A.G.A. contends that charges were framed against revisionist vide framing of charge order dated 26.08.2022. Referring to the judgment of Supreme Court in Ratilal Bhanji Mithani Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others 1979 (2) SCC 179, he submits that once the charges have been framed, Court below had no other option but to proceed with the trial and answer the charge accordingly. Learned A.G.A. then contends that a charge framed against an accused can be altered in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 216 Cr.P.C. but on the basis of evidence that may emerge subsequent to the framing of charge order.
7. Learned A.G.A., therefore, submits that from the perusal of the order impugned, it is not clear as to whether any prosecution witness has been examined and as per the deposition of said witness, a doubt could be raised with regard to the charge Section 307 IPC framed against revisionists. On the above premise, it is thus urged by the learned A.G.A. that no illegality has been committed by Court below in passing the order impugned. In view of above, the present criminal revision is misconceived and therefore, liable to be dismissed.
8. Learned counsel representing opposite party-2 has adopted the arguments raised by the learned A.G.A.
9. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for revisionists could not overcome the same.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State, the learned counsel representing opposite party-2, upon perusal of record and coupled with the fact that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing opposite party-2 in opposition to the present criminal revision could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for revisionists, therefore, this Court does not find any good or sufficient ground to entertain the present criminal revision. Furthermore, upon perusal o the order impugned, this Court finds that Court below has neither committed a jurisdictional error in passing the order impugned nor has it exercised it's jurisdiction with such material irregularity so as to vitiate the order impugned warranting interference by this Court.
12. As a result, present criminal revision fails and is liable to be dismissed.
13. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.5.2024
Vinay
