Allahabad High Court
Shivram vs State Of U.P. on 22 May, 2024
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:92554
Court No. - 77
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3985 of 2023
Revisionist :- Shivram
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashwini Kumar Ojha
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Virendra Singh Chauhan
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Shri Ashwini Kumar Ojha, the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State- Opposite Party No. 1 and Shri Virendra Singh Chauhan, the learned counsel representing Opposite Party 2.
2. Perused the record.
3. Challenge in this criminal revision is to the order dated 16.12.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Jhansi in Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2020 (Shivram Vs. State of U.P.), whereby court below has not only allowed the appeal set aside the judgment and order dated 11.12.2019 but remanded the matter to court below for decision a fresh after framing the correct charges.
4. Learned counsel for revisionist contends that since no recovery of any fire arm was made from the revisionist, therefore no charge can be framed against the revisionist under the Arms Act. He, therefore, contends that the order of remand passed by court below cannot sustained and is therefore, liable to be set aside by this Court.
5. Per contra, the learned AGA representing State, opposite party 1 and Mr. Virendra Singh Chauhan the learned counsel representing opposite party 3 have vehemently opposed this criminal revision. They submit that order impugned in present criminal revision is perfectly just and legal. Perusal of the order impugned goes to show that court below has remanded the matter on the ground that correct charges be framed and thereafter the trial of accused be conducted. As such the order of remand passed by court below is neither vague nor it has been passed to fill in the lacuna in evidence. They further submit that it is by now well settled that the court while framing the charge is not bound by the opinion expressed by the Investigating Officer in police report submitted in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. but to the contrary the court itself has to look into the material accompanying the police report and thereafter frame appropriate charges. On the above premise, they therefore, submit that no interference is warranted by this Court in present criminal revision.
6. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for revisionist could not overcome the same.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party 1, the learned counsel representing opposite party 2 and on perusal of record, this Court finds 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 revisionist. As such, no good ground exists to entertain the present criminal revision.
8. In view of above, the present criminal revision fails and is liable to be dismissed.
9. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.5.2024
Sharad/-
