Allahabad High Court
Manoj Kumar And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 May, 2024
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:89528
Court No. - 77
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5269 of 2023
Revisionist :- Manoj Kumar And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Pawan Kumar Bhardwaj,Pramod Bhardwaj
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pushpendra Singh
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1.Heard Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhardwaj, the learned counsel for revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for State- opposite party-1
2. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 28.08.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court, No.-6, Bulandsahar in Sessions Trial No. 1692 of 2021 (State Vs. Nagesh and others)) under Sections 148, 307/149, 323/149, 325/149 I.P.C. Police Station-Shikarpur, District- Bulandsahar
3. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. contends that court below has allowed the application dated 28.06.2023 (paper No. 15A) under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution/first informant on the ground that as per the statement of P.W.-2 Tinku, the presence of the prospective accused at the time and place of occurrence is fully established. As a result, court below concluded that ingredients of Section 147 stands satisfied and consequently summoned the prospective accused. Learned A.G.A. then contends that the view taken by the court below is in conformity with the law laid down by Apex Court in Sandeep Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 888.
5. Learned A.G..A has then referred to the judgement of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 1909 of 2023 (Dharmveer Vs. State of U.P. and another) decided on 06.05.2024. wherein aforementioned judgement has also been considered by the Court and dealt with in paragraph 58 of the report. For ready reference paragraph 58 of aforesaid judgement is reproduced herein under:
"58. The correctness of an order, passed by the High Court, setting aside the order of the trial Court allowing the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. again came to be considered in Sandeep Kumar (Supra). The correctness of the order was sought to be examined with reference to the provisions of Section 149 IPC. Court referred to the Five Judges Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh (Supra) and referred to paragraphs 95 to 106 of the same. The Court, thereafter, considered the ingredients of Section 149 and with reference to above, upheld the order of trial Court, on the finding that in case, a person is a member of an unlawful assembly, the ingredients of Section 149 IPC are satisfied and therefore, no material qua the innocence of such an accused is required to be looked into at the stage of deciding an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the order of the High Court was set aside."
6. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. contends that Court below while passing the order impugned has not committed a jurisdictional error nor has it exercised it's jurisdiction with material irregularity so as to vitiate the order impugned and warrant interference by this Court.
8. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for revisionist could not overcome the same.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of recort and coupled with the fact that objections raised by learned A.G.A. in opposition to present criminal revision could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for revisionist, therefore this Court does not find any good ground to entertain the present criminal revision.
10. As a result, the present criminal revision fails and is liable to be dismissed.
11.It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.5.2024
YK
