Allahabad High Court
Aslam vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 13 May, 2024
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:85619
Court No. - 77
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3299 of 2023
Revisionist :- Aslam
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Amber Khanna,Raj Kumar Khanna
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Narendra Kumar,Sitendra Singh,Sunil Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. R.K. Khanna, the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Sunil Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel representing opposite parties-2, 3 and 4.
Perused the record.
This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 2.6.2023, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharnpur in Misc. Application No. 234 of 2023 (Aslam Vs. Haseen and Others) under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Police Station- Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur.
Present criminal revision came up for admission on 11.7.2023 and this Court passed the following order:
"Notice on behalf of opposite party no.1 has been accepted by the learned A.G.A.
Issue notice to opposite party nos. 2 to 5 returnable at an early date.
Learned counsels for the opposite parties shall file their respective counter affidavits within four weeks. Learned counsel for the revisionist shall have ten days' time to file rejoinder affidavit thereafter.
List this matter on 22nd August, 2023 as fresh. "
Subsequent to above order dated 11.7.2023, notices were issued to opposite parties-2,3,4. Mr. Sunil Kumar Srivastava Advocate has put in appearanae on behalf of opposite parties-2,3 and 4 by filing his vakalatnama. Mr. Narnedra Kumar has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party-5. Even though the name of Mr. Narendra Kumar is published in the cause list but neither he nor anyone on his behalf is present to oppose this criminal revision, even in revised call.
Learned counsel for revisionist contends that order impugned in present criminal revision is manifestly illegal and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the same is liable to be set aside by this Court. Court below has rejected the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by revisionist primarily on the ground that Case Crime No. 49 of 2023 under section 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC has already been registered and investigation is going on, therefore, the prayer prayed for by means of application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is misconceived.
Learned counsel for revisionist has invited the attention of Court to the averments made in paragraphs 37 and 39 of the affidavit, filed in support of present revision i.e. judgement of Supreme Court in Kari Choudhary Vs. Sita Devi, 2002 SCC (1) 714 and Upkar Singh and Others Vs. Ved Prakash and Others, 2004 SCC (13) 292 and on basis thereof he contends that in view of the law laid down by Suprme Court in the judgments referred to in aforesaid paragraphs, the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. ought to have been laid down by Court below. As such, the order impugned is liable to be set aside by this Court.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Sunil Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel representing opposite parties-2, 3, 4 have vehemently opposed the present revision. They submit that order impugned in present revision is perfectly just and legal. Consequently, the same is not liable to be interfered with. In support of his submission order impugned is in accordance with law, the learned counsel for opposite parties-2,3 and 4 has referred to the judgement of this Court in Beekki Verma Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2021 (5) ADJ 351 and on basis thereof, he contends that no illegality has been committed by Court below, in passing the order impugned. As such, present revision is liable to be dismissed.
Having heard the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Sunil Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel representing opposite parties-2, 3, 4, this Court finds that in the case of Beekki Verma Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2021 (5) ADJ 351 following observations have been made in paragraph 15. Accordingly same is extracted herein under:
"15. The question as to whether the subsequently registered FIR is the second FIR relating to the same incident or offence or is based upon distinct and different facts and whether its scope of enquiry is entirely different or not, would have to be examined on the facts and circumstances giving rise to the two FIRs."
When the order impugned is examined in the light of above, this Court finds that no finding has been returned by Court below in the order impugned with reference to the observations made in paragraph 15 of aforementioned judgement. As a result, the concerned Magistrate has failed to exercise its jurisdiction diligently. The order impugned is the outcome of exercise of jurisdiction of aforementioned judgement by Court below in a casual and caviliar fashion. As such, order impugned cannot be sustained.
In view of above, the present criminal revisions succeeds and is liable to be allowed.
It is accordingly allowed.
Order impugned dated 2.6.2023, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharnpur in Misc. Application No. 234 of 2023 (Aslam Vs. Haseen and Others) under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Police Station- Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur is hereby setaside.
The matter shall stand remanded to Court concerned for decision afresh in the light of observations made herein above. The consequential exercise shall be undertaken by Court concerned within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 13.5.2024
Arshad
