Allahabad High Court
Shahjad Ali vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 May, 2024
Author: Rahul Chaturvedi
Bench: Rahul Chaturvedi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Judgement Reserved On 08.02.2024
Judgement Delivered On 21.05.2024
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:91066-DB
Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1505 of 2019
Revisionist :- Shahjad Ali
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Mohd. Afzal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J.
1. Heard Mohd. Afzal, learned counsel for the revisionist assisted by Sri Kushagra Srivastava Sri Shahrukh, Advocates, Sri S.F.A. Naqvi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Syed Ahmad Faizan, Zaheer Ashar, Ms. Fatma Anjum and Sri Munawar Hussain, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Sri Ghanshyan Kumar, learend AGA-I and Sri Satyendra Tiwari, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. We have already heard the respective counsel to their satisfaction and have reserved the judgement.
3. The aforesaid revision has been filed on behalf of Shahjad Ali, the first informant with the prayer to admit the instant revision and ultimately enhance the sentence of the accused-opposite party no.2 up maximum sentence awarded under Section 498A, 307/34 IPC and Section 4 of D.P.Act pursuant to the judgement and order dated 12.02.2019 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/FTC, Hapur while deciding the S.T. No. 1333 of 2013 (State Vs. Sazid and others ) under Section 498A, 307/34 IPC and Section 4 of D.P.Act, P.S. Simbhawali, District Hapur arising out of case crime no. 234 of 2012.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the proposed accused-respondent has pointed that the same Shahjad Ali, the informant has also filed an Criminal Appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. No. 106 of 2019 with the prayer to grant leave to file present appeal against the judgment and order dated 12.02.2019 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/FTC, Hapur while deciding the S.T. No. 1333 of 2013 (State Vs. Sazid and others ) under Section 498A, 307/34 IPC and Section 4 of D.P.Act, P.S. Simbhawali, District Hapur. The said Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 2019 which is yet to be admitted and form the part of the appeal.
5. Thus, it has been contended that, since the informant has already invoked the apt remedy under Section 372 Cr.P.C. and therefore the present Criminal Revision is now become redundant to adjudicate upon in the light of judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Joseph Stephen and others Vs. Santhanasamy and others in Crl. Appeal No. 90-93 of 2022 decided on 25.01.2022 reported in 2022 (13) SCC 115 In this judgement the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 12 and 13 of the judgement have opined that :-
"12. Now the next question is what order should be passed in a case like the present. This Court may either set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court setting aside the acquittal and convicting the accused so as to enable the High Court to remit the matter to the first appellate Court to rehear the appeal after considering the findings recorded by it or to remit the matter to the High Court to treat the revision application as a petition of appeal against the order of acquittal, which otherwise is permissible under sub-section (5) to Section 401 Cr.P.C. As observed hereinabove, as such, while exercising the powers under sub-section (5) to Section 401 Cr.P.C. to treat the revision application as a petition of appeal, the High Court is required to pass a judicial order. However, considering the fact that even otherwise being victims they are having the statutory right of appeal as per proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., we deem it fit and proper to remit the matter to the High Court to treat the revision applications as petition of appeals under Section 372 Cr.P.C. and to decide the same in accordance with law and on their own merits. The same would be in the interests of all, namely, the victims as well as the accused, as the appellate Court would have a wider scope and jurisdiction as an appellate Court, rather than the revisional court.
13. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court reversing the acquittal and convicting the accused is hereby quashed and set aside. The matters are remitted to the High Court. The High Court is directed to treat the revision applications as appeals under Section 372 Cr.P.C. and thereafter to decide and dispose of the same in accordance with law on their own merits."
6. Thus in the light of above observation made by Hon'ble Apex court in the aforesaid case as well as that Shahjad Ali, the first informant has already and parallelly invoked the powers under Section 372 Cr.P.C. of this Court assailing the impugned judgement dated 12.02.2022 whereby the learned Trial Judge have acquitted Zakir, Smt. Jaitoon and Nazakat from the charges under Section 498A, 307/34 IPC and Section 323/34 IPC and Section 4 of the D.P.Act, thus the present Criminal Revision is hereby rejected as such keeping in view the above observation made by Hon'ble Apex Court.
7. Accordingly, the present Criminal Revision stands REJECTED and the same may be consigned to record.
Order Date :- 21/05/2024
Abhishek Sri.
