Allahabad High Court
Ram Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 May, 2024
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:97450
Court No. - 82
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21581 of 2010
Applicant :- Ram Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Prakash Anand,Neeraj Kr. Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt Advocate,I.K.Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that at the time of institution of the instant applicant the final prayer for quashing the entire proceedings has been inadvertently left and the same may be treated alongwith the entire prayer for quashing of the order dated 01.06.2010.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant is hereby permitted to carry out the final prayer as sought during the course of the day.
3. Heard Ms. Sonam Nishad, Advocate holding brief of Sri Neeraj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
4. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the order dated 01.06.2010 passed by the Special Judge Decoity Affect Area/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, District Banda and also to quash the entire proceedings of the criminal misc. application No.71/XII/2009, Kallu Gupta Vs. Ram Singh in Case Crime No.92 of 2008, under Sections- 387, 342, 392, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 7 of Dacoity Affected Areas Act.
5. It is the case of the applicant that initially an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. preferred on behalf of the opposite party no.2, whereupon the FIR lodged in Case Crime No.92 of 2008, under Sections 387, 342, 392, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- G.R.P, Banda, District Banda. After investigation conducted by the concerned Investigating Officer, the final report has been submitted under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. After filing of the final report, the protest petition dated 15.04.2009 has been preferred on behalf of the opposite party no.2, whereupon after rejecting the final report re-investigation has been directed by the concerned magistrate vide order dated 22.05.2009. Being aggrieved with the order dated 22.05.2009 the same has been challenged through Application U/S 482 No.23022 of 2009 (Ram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others), through which, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court modified the direction of re-investigation into further investigation vide judgment and order dated 08.10.2009. In the strict compliance of the order and direction dated 08.10.2009, the matter has been further investigated and again the final report has been submitted on 04.01.2010, but again the protest petition was preferred by the opposite party no.2, whereupon the applicant has been summoned vide order dated 01.06.2010 passed by the Special Judge (D.A.A.)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, District Banda, which impugned the instant application.
6. At the admission stage, Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2, who accepted the notices but during the pendency for more than 13 years no counter affidavit has ever been preferred either on behalf of the opposite party no.2 or on behalf of the State, there is no option left but to finally adjudicate the matter only on the basis of the pleadings and documents available in the record.
7. Ms. Sonam Nishad, Advocate holding brief of Sri Neeraj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted her arguments on strictly legal premises that once the FIR has been lodged and the protest petition has been preferred against the final report submitted by the concerned Investigating Officer under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C., the role of the learned court was to convert the same if the grounds available in the protest petition are convincing for examination of the same under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. being complaint and thereafter summon the concerned person against whom the allegation has been put forward by the complainant, but in the instant matter only over the protest petition the applicant has been summoned vide order dated 01.06.2010 that is against the procedure of law. For strengthening the arguments learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgment dated 07.08.2007 passed in Criminal Revision No.1105 of 2001 rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this court, wherein it has been held that the magistrate could not take cognizance under Section 190 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. on the basis of the protest petition and affidavits filed in support thereof. The magistrate having taken into account extraneous material i.e. protest petition and affidavits while taking cognizance under Section 190(1) (b) Cr.P.C. the order is vitiated.
8. Before parting with the adjudication of the controversy as raised through the instant application it would be unjustified to sum up the same without appreciating the preparation made by the learned young counsel, Ms. Sonam Nishad who assisted the Court in a very befitting and proper manner.
9. Having full regard with the arguments raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant as well as the pronouncement made by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which is strictly and fully applicable over the instant matter, the order dated 01.06.2010 passed by the Special Judge Dacoity Affected Area/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, District Banda alongwith entire proceedings in pursuance to Case Crime No.92 of 2008, under Sections 387, 342, 392, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7 of Dacoity Affected Areas Act are hereby quashed.
10. The application U/S 482 is hereby allowed accordingly.
Order Date :- 28.5.2024
Radhika
