Rishab Dev And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 36254 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Rishab Dev And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 November, 2024

Author: Rajeev Misra

Bench: Rajeev Misra

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:173279
 
Court No. - 72
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36898 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Rishab Dev And 3 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Devendra Kumar Tiwari,Kamta Prasad Shukla,Sudhir Mehrotra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
 

1. Heard Mr. Devendra Kumar Tiwari, Advocate along with Mr. Sudhir Mehrotra, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1.

2. Perused the record.

3. At the very outset, the learned counsel for applicants submits that he be permitted to correct the cause title of this application as occurring in the affidavit filed in support of present application.

4. Prayer made by the learned counsel for applicants is bona-fide. Same is not opposed by the learned A.G.A.

5. Accordingly, it is allowed.

6. Let necessary correction in the cause title of this application occurring in the affidavit filed in support of present application be carried out by the learned counsel for applicant during course of the day.

7. Learned counsel for applicants submits that framing of charge order dated 04.01.2024 passed by Court below is manifestly illegal and therefore, liable to be quashed by this Court. He has then referred to the statement of one of the witness, copy of which is on record at page 69 of the paper book. With reference to the said statement, he submits that since there is no recital in the statement of first informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that he has suffered fracture in his tiny fingure, therefore, no offence under Section 325 IPC can be said to have been committed by applicant. As such, the order impugned is liable to be quashed by this Court.

8. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the present application. Learned A.G.A. has referred to the Three Judges Bench judgment of Supreme Court in Tarun Jit Tejpal Vs. State of Goa, (2020) 14 SCC 556, wherein the Apex Court has held that at the time of framing of charge, the Court is required to be prima-facie satisfied and not pass a very detailed order regarding framing of charge against accused. With reference to the material on record, the learned A.G.A. submits that since the medical report of the injured clearly shows that he has suffered fracture in his tiny fingure, therefore, framing of charge Section 325 IPC cannot be said to be illegal and without jurisdiction. As such, no interference is warranted by this Court in present application.

9. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicants could not overcome the same.

10. Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record this Court finds that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application is clearly borne out from the record and further the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicants with reference to the record.

11. As a result, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

12. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 5.11.2024

Vinay