Dismissed

Yogendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2019A482/13182/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant contended that the Sessions Judge lacked jurisdiction to allow revision after a long lapse of time following the rejection of a Section 156(3) application. The court held that a prima facie case under Section 302 IPC was made out, dismissed the application, and remanded the matter for appropriate orders on the registration application.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; Learned court below directed to pass appropriate order on Section 156(3) application.

Yogendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Reserved

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13182 of 2005

¶4

Applicant :- Yogendra Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bishram Tiwari,Upendra Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶5

Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶6

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by applicant, Yogendra Singh, to quash the impugned order dated 08.09.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Kushinagar at Padrauna in Criminal Revision No. 260 of 2004 in which the Court below allowed the revision filed by opposite party no. 2 and directed the Court below to register a case against the applicant and investigate the matter regarding death of husband of respondent no. 2.

¶7

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶8

3. Brief facts of this case are as follows-:

¶9

A case against the Satender (since deceased) husband of opposite party no. 2, Raj Kumari, was registered by the applicant, Yogendra Singh at Police Station Tarya Sujan, District Kushinagar as Case Crime No. 310 of 2001 under Section 307 I.P.C. alongwith Case Crime No. 311 of 2001 under Section 3/25 Arms Act on 17.11.2001. That applicant alongwith two persons were going for photo identification near the house of Hira Noniya, towards North side one motorcycle driving by Satender reached alongwith one unknown person where the applicant was stopped by the accused per-

¶10

Page No. 1/4

¶11

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13182 of 2005

¶12

sons and after some time Satender Singh fired at the applicant by one country made pistol and the applicant was fallen down and saved his life. That after listening the aforesaid incident, the villagers ran away towards the accused and accused was badly beaten by the villagers as a result accused, Satender Singh, died. Thereafter F.I.R. dated 17.11.2001 lodged by applicant. That investigating officer has investigated the matter and submitted final report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Chief Judicial Magistrate has accepted the same on 15.06.2002.

¶13

That opposite party no. 2 has filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.on 31.07.2004 before the Chief Judicial magistrate, Kushinagar with prayer to direct the Station House Officer, Tarya Sujan, District Kushinagar to register the case and to investigate the matter.

¶14

That on 21.08.2004, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar, after perusing the report of police station concerned refused to register the case against the applicant. Being aggrieved with the order dated 20.09.2004 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, opposite party no. 2 has filed a revision before Sessions Court, Kushinagar.

¶15

That Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. after hearing the parties, allowed the application under Section 156(3) of opposite party no. 2 on 08.09.2003 and directed the Magistrate to consider the application of opposite party no. 2 and being aggrieved by the order of learned Sessions Court this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant.

¶16

Revision was allowed vide order dated 08.09.2005 and against the said order application under 482 Cr.P.C. filed by applicant.

¶17

Page No. 2/4

¶18

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13182 of 2005

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for all the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the opposite parties.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that once the application under Section 156(3) was dis-allowed then only one course is opened to the opposite party no. 2 to file complaint case against the applicant as well as other person. There was no occasion before the opposite party no. 2 to file application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. That after laps of about 3 years and after rejecting the application under Section 156(3) Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C/, Kushinagar at Padrauna does not have jurisdiction to allow the revision of opposite party no. 2 but allowing the revision of opposite party no. 2. This is a clear cut case of abuse of the process of law and miscarriage of justice. That order passed by Sessions Judge, F.T.C., District Kushinagar at Padrauna dated 08.09.2005 is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction, hence order dated 08.09.2005 passed by Sessions Judge, Kushinagar is liable to be quashed.

¶21

10.Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the application contending that prima facie case is made out against the applicant under Section 302 I.P.C., and therefore, revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶22

11.In Raghu Raj Singh Rausa Vs. Shiva Sundaram Promoters Pvt. Ltd. 2009 (1) SCC Page 801, apex court decided the issue that against the rejection of application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., criminal revision is maintainable.

¶23

12.It is evident clear that after incident dated 17.11.2001, an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed by opposite party no. 2 after lapse of two years and eight months and learned counsel for

¶24

Page No. 3/4

¶25

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13182 of 2005

¶26

the applicant contended that after lapse of two years eight months no criminal proceedings can be lodged against the applicant. In my considered opinion, there is no limitation for taking cognizance against such heinous offence under Section 302 I.P. C.

¶27

13.Prima facie, offence under Section 302 I.P.C. made out against the applicant. Hence revisional court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction and allow the revision and directed the Magistrate that prima faice cognizable offence is madeout against the applicant and also directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned to register the case against the applicant. There is no miscarriage of justice in this case and fair chance of investigation must be given in this regard.

¶28

14.Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is being devoid of merit and hereby dismissed , accordingly.

¶29

15.Learned court below is directed to pass an appropriate order in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. of opposite party no. 2 in accordance with law.

¶30

Order Date:- - 15.02.2019 Vibha Singh

¶31

Page No. 4/4

¶32

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13182 of 2005

Yogendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prem Chand and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others

Raj Kumar @ Raju Vs State of U.P.

Rajni Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Jagdeo Vs Sobran Lal Yadav and Another

Umesh Chandra Vs State of U.P.and Food Inspector

Smt. Nageshwari @ Nagina @ Neeraj and Another Vs State of U.P.and Another