In a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, the Single Judge dismissed the plea to challenge the lower court's refusal to add Section 307 IPC. The court noted that since the trial is pending and evidence, specifically medical evidence, is awaited, no final opinion was yet formed.
The application to quash the impugned order was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 53
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21146 of 2018
Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Ojha Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 07.05.2018 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No. 5, District Ballia in Session Trial No. 343 of 2015 (State Vs. U.P. Versus Anand Swaroop Shukla and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 31 of 2013, under Sections 147, 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Ballia, whereby application moved on behalf of the applicant to add Section 307 I.P.C. also in complaint has been rejected.
The Court below has observed that three injuries brought on record are simple in nature and unless medical evidence is brought on record, no final opinion can be formed upon the application filed by the applicant for adding Section 307 I.P.C.
Learned counsel for the applicant has invited attention of the Court to the statement of applicant as per which there was murderous assault made against him and while protecting himself he sustained injuries on his hand. It is also stated that the Apex Court in the Case of Anjani Kumar Chaudhary Versus State of Bihar and another; (2014) 5 Supreme Court Cases (Crl) 72 has been pleased to observe that for attracting ingredients of Section 307 I.P.C. it is not necessary that injury be on vital part of the body.
The application is opposed by learned A.G.A.
Perusal of the record would go to show that cross cases have been lodged by the parties and the trial is pending. At this stage of the proceedings, the Court has refrained from passing any final orders on the application No. 46B for adding Section 307 I.P.C. in the complaint case
This Court finds no error in the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court below inasmuch as if the Court has refrained from passing any final orders on the application at this stage,
awaiting further evidence including medical evidence, no case for interference is made out. It goes without saying that after evidence in its entirety is led including medical evidence, it shall be open for the applicant to press his application.
Subject to the aforesaid observation, this application is dismissed .
Order Date :- 11.6.2018 NS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the lower court erred in refusing to add Section 307 IPC on the current stage of proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Anjani Kumar Chaudhary Versus State of Bihar and anotherReferred¶8
(2014) 5 Supreme Court Cases (Crl) 72
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sudhir Kumar Ojha
Ashwani Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
