Allahabad High Court
Titu vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:85132
Court No. - 89
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4160 of 2024
Applicant :- Titu
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Ali Imam
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicantsand learned A.G.A for the State.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 17.01.2024, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/F.T.C., I, Gautam Buddh Nagar, in Criminal Revision No. 280 of 2022 (Ravita Vs. State of U.P. and Another), by which rejected the discharge order dated 15.01.2020 passed Judicial Magistrate, Jewar, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, in Complaint Case No. 267 of 2017, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Jewar, District Gautam Buddh Nagar.
3. It is submitted that opposite party no. 2 is the bhabhi of the applicant. Summoning order was passed on 09.07.2018 against the applicant which was challenged by him before this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 38905 of 2019 and this Court directed the applicant to move a discharge application before the Court concerned.
4. Pursuant to aforesaid order, application for discharge was moved, which was allowed vide order dated 15.01.2020. The opposite party no. 2 filed a revision before the District Judge, Noida who allowed the revision and remanded back the matter to the learned Court concerned for passing a fresh order. It is submitted that learned trial Court passed the order for discharging the applicant on the basis of material available on record. The eye witness of the incident was not produced and there was an inordinate delay in filing the complaint. No injury report is produced on record. The Revisional Court did not consider this fact that the discharge application was moved by the applicant in pursuant to order of this Court. It is case of malice and no offence was committed by the applicant. The matter relates to matrimonial dispute.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A oppose the prayer and submitted that the learned Revisional Court discussed all the aspects of the matter and arrived at the conclusion that no evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C was adduced by the complainant. Since, no evidence was available on record, therefore, on which basis, the learned Magistrate discharged the applicant was not apparent.
6. Perusal of the Revisional Court order passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/F.T.C-I, Noida dated 17.01.2024, reflects that while quoting the provisions contained under Section 245 Cr.P.C, the learned trial Court concluded that after the summoning order, no additional evidence was available on record, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law. No evidence was produced by the complainant under Section 244 Cr.P.C. So far as the delay in filing the complaint was concerned, the learned Magistrate ought to not have passed the summoning order. The learned Revisional Court passed the impugned order after considering all the aspects of the matter and there is no infirmity or illegality in the Revisional Court order.
7. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion, that learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any infirmity in the order impugned which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of power conferred under 482 Cr.P.C.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the available record, the prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 17.01.2024 is refused.
9. The application stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.5.2024
PS
