Uttarakhand High Court
Ayyaz vs State Of Uttarakhand on 6 June, 2025
Author: Vivek Bharti Sharma
Bench: Vivek Bharti Sharma
2025:UHC:4631
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 298 of 2025
Ayyaz ............Revisionist
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand .........Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Mohd Safdar, learned counsel for the revisionist.
Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G. for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated : 06.06.2025
Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.
This criminal revision has been filed by
the revisionist challenging the order dated
05.05.2025 by the learned 2nd Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Haridwar, in Sessions Trial
No. 08 of 2025 whereby the order to frame charge
for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148,
149, 452, 323, 307, 504 and 506 I.P.C was
passed.
2. Learned counsel for the
revisionist/accused would submit that the FIR
was initially lodged by respondent no.2 against
five accused persons including the present
revisionist; that, upon completion of investigation,
the Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet
against the four co-accused persons under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 307, 504 and
506 I.P.C.; that, the cognizance was taken by
2025:UHC:4631
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar on
16.02.2019; that, subsequently, a supplementary
charge sheet was filed against the present
revisionist/accused also under Sections 147, 148,
149, 452, 304, 307, 323, 504, and 506 IPC,
whereupon the cognizance was again taken by
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar on
15.05.2019.
3. Learned counsel for the
revisionist/accused would further submit that
after trial court took cognizance against five
accused persons including the present
revisionist/accused, the Investigating Officer
moved an application before the trial court for
further investigation of the case; that, after
further investigation, the Investigating Officer
submitted a supplementary charge sheet stating
that no offence under Section 307 IPC was made
out against the first four previously charge-
sheeted co-accused but remained silent on the
same regarding the present revisionist/accused.
He would further submit that the
revisionist/accused filed a discharge application
before the trial court on the ground that since
Section 307 IPC was dropped against the four co-
accused in charge-sheet filed on further
investigation, the present revisionist/accused be
discharged.
2025:UHC:4631
4. Per contra, learned State counsel would
strongly oppose the above submissions on the
ground since learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Haridwar had already taken the cognizance
against the other four co-accused persons under
Section 307 I.P.C. also on the first charge sheet
filed by the Investigating Officer, therefore, the
Investigating Officer did not have any authority to
file a fresh chargesheet against the co-accused
exonerating them from the charge of Section 307
I.P.C.; that, hence, trial court rightly dismissed
the discharge application after evaluating the
materials on record by impugned order dated
05.05.2025.
5. Perused the record in the light of the
submissions made by learned counsel for the
revisionist/accused.
6. Upon perusal of the record, this Court
finds no illegality, impropriety, or incorrectness in
the impugned order rather this Court concurs with
the view of the trial court that once cognizance
for the offence of Section 307 I.P.C. had already
been taken by the trial court, the Investigating
Officer exceeded his power in filing a
subsequent chargesheet on further investigation
stating that no offence was made out under
Section 307 IPC against the co-accused.
7. Learned counsel for the
2025:UHC:4631
revisionist/accused could not point out any other
irregularity in the proceedings of the lower court
or any impropriety, illegality and incorrectness in
the impugned orders except that in charge sheet
after further investigation, the Investigating
Officer exonerated the remaining co-accused from
the offence of Section 307 I.P.C.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, this
Court is of the view that there is no reason to
make any interference in the impugned judgment
and order. The revision deserves to be dismissed
at the admission stage.
9. Accordingly, the revision is hereby
dismissed in limine.
10. The revisionist/accused is directed to
appear in the trial court on 16.06.2025 at 10.30
A.M. for which no summon is needed to be sent.
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to the
trial court for information and needful as per law.
(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)
06.06.2025
Mamta
