Allahabad High Court
Ram Prakash vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 February, 2025
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:16334
Court No. - 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35004 of 2024
Applicant :- Ram Prakash
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Perused the record.
3. Applicant- Ram Prakash, who is charge sheeted accused has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 07.06.2023 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate Mathura in Case No. 6614 of 2012 (State of U.P. vs. Ram Prakash) arising out of Case Crime No. 439 of 2007, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Farah, District Mathura.
4. It appears that the prospective-accused, who had been summoned in aforementioned criminal case has approached this Court by means of Criminal Revision No. 2943 of 2013 (Panna Lal & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.). The aforementioned criminal revision was allowed by this Court vide order dated 09.09.2015. For ready reference the same is reproduced herein below:-
"Heard Sri Prashant Mishra, learned counsel for revisionists, Sri Anand Pandey, learned counsel on behalf of respondent no. 2 and learned A.G.A. on behalf of State.
Present criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 07.10.2013 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura in Crl. Case No.6614 of 2012 (State Vs. Ram Prakash) under Sections 279, 304-A I.P.C., P.S. Farah, District Mathura whereby the revisionists have been summoned to face trial.
It appears that respondent no. 2 initiated a criminal case through application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against three persons for murdering her son on 26.4.2007 at about 6 am. The matter was investigated by the Police and a charge sheet under Sections 279 and 304-A I.P.C. was filed only against the accused Ram Prakash in case Crime No.439 of 2007. The statement of informant/complainant was recorded wherein she again reiterated the original story alleging that her son had been murdered by charge-sheeted accused Ram Prakash and two other persons, namely, Panna Lal and Shiv Prakash, revisionists. She also claimed that her correct statement was not recorded by the Investigating Officer. She moved an application under Section 323 Cr.P.C. seeking commitment of the aforesaid case to the court of sessions. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate passed a detailed order on 14.2.2012 saying that the case should be committed to the Court of Sessions under Section 323 Cr.P.C. and that; since the matter pertains to murder under Section 302 I.P.C. the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the case perhaps under local distribution of work. The Magistrate sent the files to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura for appropriate orders. Apparently, this file kept pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate for several months. Suddenly after more than one and a half years, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura took notice of this pending file and instead of committing this case to the court of sessions, he summoned remaining person named in the F.I.R. despite there being no charge sheet against them.
Learned counsel for revisionist has submitted that once the decision has been taken to commit a case to the court of sessions under Section 323 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate had lost the jurisdiction to summon any additional accused. He pointed out that the additional accused could have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. but since a decision had already been taken regarding committal of the case, even order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. could have only been passed by the court of sessions. He has relied upon several judgments of Apex Court in Ranjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in Laws (SC) 1998-9-18, Raj Kishore Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and another reported in (1996) 4 SCC 495 and Kishori Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in LAWS (SC) 2000-1-2013. The Apex Court in Ranjit Singh(Supra) has held thus:-
"Thus once the Session Court takes cognizance of the offence pursuant to the committal order the only other stage when the Court is empowered to add any other person to the array of the accused is after reaching evidence collection when powers under Section 319 of the Code can be invoked. We are unable to find any other power for the Session Court to permit addition of new person or persons to the array of the accused. Of course it is not necessary for the court to wait until the entire evidence is collected for exercising the said powers."
A bare perusal of scheme of criminal procedure code would reveal that a case in which a Magistrate had taken a decision to commit the case to the court of sessions had no business to summon additional accused before committal. Had he not taken a decision to commit a case to the court of sessions, he could have exercised his power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. during course of trial. But in the present case, the Magistrate did not exercise his power while holding trial. He had infact taken a decision to commit the case to the court of sessions. Once the decision was taken, only course open to the Magistrate was to commit case to the court of sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C. read with Section 323 Cr.P.C.
In view of the above, this criminal revision is allowed. The order dated 7.10.2013 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura in Crl. Case No.6614 of 2012 (State Vs. Ram Prakash) under Sections 279, 304-A I.P.C., P.S. Farah, District Mathura is hereby set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to pass appropriate orders regarding commitment of the case as expeditiously, as possible."
5. With reference to above order dated 09.09.2015, the learned A.G.A. submits that Jurisdictional Magistrate had already taken a decision vide order dated 14.02.2012 to commit the case to the Court of Sessions. This order dated 14.02.2012 has remained unchallenged till date. Since under the local arrangement, the order of committal could have been passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura therefore, the concerned Judicial Magistrate had transferred the record of the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura way back in the year 2012. He therefore, contends that the order impugned in the present application, i.e., the committal order dated 07.06.2023 is only a consequential order. It is well settled that no application under section 482 Cr.P.C. lies against the consequential order. It is thus contended by the learned A.G.A. that the present application is mis-conceived and, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
6. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, the learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 1and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application are clearly borne out from the record and further more the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant, with reference to the record at this stage. As such, no good ground exists to entertain the present application.
8. In view of above, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.
9. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.2.2025
Ruhi H.
(Rajeev Misra,J.)
