Allowed

Smt Ram Dhakeli v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2022A482/27735/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside a trial court order rejecting a charge addition. The order was quashed as non-compliant with a prior directive to consider specific evidence, and the trial court was directed to decide the matter afresh.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 12.4.2022 is set aside. The court below is directed to decide application 51-B along with application 56-B in light of previous directions, considering all filed documents and

Smt Ram Dhakeli Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27735 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Smt Ram Dhakeli Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Amit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the order dated 12.04.2022, passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) Jhansi, in Special Trial No.489 of 2018 (State vs. Deepak Yadav and others) arising out of Case Crime No.517 of 2017, under Sections 452, 323/34, 504, 506 of IPC read with Sections-3(1) Da, Dha of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Shipari Bazar, District- Jhansi, whereby the application for framing charge under Sections- 394 of IPC against opposite party nos. 2 and 3 has been rejected.

¶7

The brief facts of the case giving rise to instant application are that on 12.12.2017 when the applicant was present along with her son Mahendra Bhasker and husband Ayodhya Prasad at about 6.00 p.m. the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 along with one Manvendra Yadav came to applicant's house and called her son and they entered inside the house and started beating the applicant, her son and husband and also kicked with leg on the stomach of applicant, due to which ribs of applicant got fractured and applicant received serious injuries. Accused persons also used caste related language and took Mangalsutra from the neck of the applicant. They also snatched Rs. 10,000/kept in the purse of the applicant and after threatening to kill them, they ran away. Thereafter the applicant went to the police station to lodge F.I.R., but no report was lodged by the police station concerned.

¶8

Learned trial court has framed the charges during the course of trial and rejected the application 51-B moved by the informant under Section 240 Cr.P.C. for addition of charge under Section 394 of IPC. An application dated 19.1.2021 filed by the informant/applicant was rejected wherein it was stated that the chargesheet has not been submitted against the accused persons under Section 394 of IPC though the evidence have been filed by the applicant earlier to the submission of chargesheet. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has

¶9

not entertained those evidence, medical report and other documents, which have been filed by her, have not been placed along with the charge sheet and the same have not been made part of the case dairy.

¶10

Earlier an Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.5522 of 2021 (Ram Dhakeli vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others) has been filed by the applicant which is finally disposed of on 10.8.2021. The operative portion of the order dated 10.8.2021 is quoted as under:-

¶11

"Mere application was moved by applicant before trial judge, still neither evidence has been adduced by prosecution nor any document to that effect has been placed on record.

¶12

Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is at liberty to lead evidence and file certain documents in support of earlier application moved by her which shall be considered and decided in accordance with law by the trial judge as expeditiously as possible."

¶13

Prayer for addition of Section 394 of IPC was firstly rejected on the ground that although allegations of robbery have been made in FIR against the accused persons but no witness has supported the incident of robbery except the informant. The prayer of the applicant for addition of charge under Section 394 of IPC has again been rejected by the trial court vide order dated 12.4.2022, which is under challenge in the present application.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in application 55-B photo copy of the injury report of Mahendra, Bhaskar and Ayodhya Prasad and the affidavit of the witnesses had already been filed by her and photo copy of same again filed.

¶15

The notary affidavit of witnesses Mahendra Bhasker and Ayodhya Prasad were initially filed before the Investigating Officer but the same was not made part of the case dairy and therefore, the applicant has filed these affidavits after filing of charge sheet in the court.

¶16

From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that documents and affidavits filed by the informant had not been considered in impugned order whereas this court has observed in previous order dated 10.8.2021 that the documents in support of earlier application moved by the applicant shall be considered by the trial judge.

¶17

Thus, the impugned order is not sustainable for non compliance of order dated 10.8.2021 of this Court. The impugned order dated 12.4.2022 is set aside. Accordingly the court below is directed to decide the application 51-B along with application

¶18

56-B in the light of the directions passed in Application U/S 482 No.5522 of 2021 vide order dated 10.8.2021.

¶19

The court below shall pass fresh order in the light of said direction of this Court on the applications of the applicant, considering all the documents and affidavit filed by the informant, in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

¶20

With the aforesaid, the application is disposed of. Order Date :- 12.9.2022 S.K.

¶21

Digitally signed by SWEETY KANOJIA Date: 2022.09.20 11:56:07 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Ram Dhakeli v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Ram Dhakeli v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashutosh @ Salu Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Suman and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Smt. Aneeta Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Surendra Pal Singh @ Bhala Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Naseem Ahmad @ Bhagat Ji Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Yogesh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others