Special Judge rejected discharge application filed by applicants who were initial FIR informants in a murder case. High Court dismissed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., noting cross-versions requiring adjudication and sufficient prima facie material against applicants based on a prior charge sheet.
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. - 80
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7551 of 2022
Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Naseem Rufi Q Alrafio B.M. Mugaanii,Shikha Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Smt. Shikha Singh, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State.
Perused the record.
Challenge in this application is to the order dated 07.12.2021 passed by Special Judge (D.A.A.)/Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in Special Trial No. 52 of 1997 (Krishna Murari Vs. Hari Om and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 215A of 1996, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 394, 436, 504 IPC, Police Station Allau, District Mainpuri whereby the discharge application (paper no. 19 ba) filed by applicant, has been rejected.
Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 26.12.1996 at around 9 a.m., an FIR dated 26.12.1996 was lodged by first informant, Sandeep Kumar and was registered as Case Crime No. 215A of 1996, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 394 and 323 IPC, Police Station Allau, District Mainpuri. After registration of aforementioned FIR, Investigating Officer produced with statutory investigation of aforementioned case crime number in terms of Chapter 12 Cr.P.C. On the basis of material collected during the course of investigation which is substantially adverse to applicants, Investigating Officer opined to submit a charge sheet. Investigating Officer accordingly submitted the charge sheet dated 16.01.1997 upon which cognizance was taken by Court concerned. Ultimately as a result of above, Special Trial No. 52 of 1997 (Krishna Murari Vs. Hari Om and others) came to be registered in the Court of Special Judge (D.A.A.)/Additional Session Judge, Mainpuri. In the aforesaid special trial, Court concerned vide order dated 25.07.2013 framed separate and distinct charges against the charge sheeted accused namely Vinda @ Virendra Pal, Maharaj Singh, Chela @ Arjun Singh and Shanti under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 302/149 IPC.
In respect of the same incident dated 26.12.1996, a delayed FIR
dated 31.12.1996 was lodged by first informant, Krishna Murari and was registered as Case Crime No. 215A of 1996, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 394, 436 and 504 IPC, Police Station Allau, District Mainpuri. Investigating Officer upon conclusion of statutory investigation of aforementioned case crime number in terms of Chapter 12 of Cr.P.C. ultimately submitted final report. After submission of final report, protest petition was filed by first informant/opposite party no. 2 and Court below ultimately allowed the protest petition and summoned the applicants in aforementioned case crime number. Applicants filed a discharge application (paper no. 19 b). Resultantly, Special Trial No. 52 of 1997 (Krishna Murari Vs. Hari Om and others) came to be registered seeking discharge in the aforementioned case crime number which was rejected by Court below by means of an order dated 07.12.2021. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid, applicants who have summoned by the Court below have now filed present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for applicants contends that FIR dated 26.12.1996 was lodged first from the side of the applicants. On the aforesaid FIR, after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted upon which cognizance has been taken. She then invited attention of the Court to the framing of charge order dated 25.07.2013 and on basis thereof, she contends that charges have already been framed against the accused mentioned in the FIR which was lodged from the side of the applicants. As such, there is no occasion before Court below to proceed against applicants.
Per contra, the learned AGA has opposed this application. He submits that there are cross versions in respect of same occurrence, therefore, what is required to be adjudicated upon by Court concerned as to who is the aggressor. Aforesaid question cannot be decided in the absence of accused.
Placing reliance upon paragraph 32 of the three judges Bench judgement in Tarun Jit Tejpal Vs. State of Goa and Another, 2019 SCC Online Sc 1053 , he submits that no case for discharge is made out. For ready reference, same is reproduced hereunder :
"32. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions and considering the scope of enquiry at the stage of framing of the charge under Section 227/228 if the Cr.P.C., we are of the opinion that the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant on merits, at this stage, are not required to be considered. Whatever submissions are made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant are on merits are required to be dealt with and considered at an appropriate stage during the course of the trial. Some of
the submissions may be considered to be the defence of the accused. Some of the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant on the conduct of the victim/prosecutrix are required to be dealt with and considered at an appropriate stage during the trial. The same are not required to be considered at this stage of framing of the charge. On considering the material on record, we are of the opinion that there is more than a prima facie case against the accused for which he is required to be tried. There is sufficient ample material against the accused and therefore the learned Trial Court has rightly framed the charge against the accused and the same is rightly confirmed by the High Court. No interference of this Court is called for."
It is also contended that the discharge application filed by applicants was rejected by Court below vide order dated 07.12.2021 and 03.01.2022 was the date fixed for framing of charge. The charges must have been framed by now.
On the aforesaid premise, learned AGA contends that no indulgence be granted by the Court in favour of applicants.
When confronted with above, learned counsel for applicants could not overcome the same.
In view of above, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.
It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.7.2022 SA
Digitally signed by SALMAN ALI Date: 2022.07.13 11:09:20 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to allow discharge application filed by applicants who were FIR informants before accused had been summoned.
Whether sufficient material exists to sustain a prima facie case for framing of charges against applicants despite their prior status as informants.
Whether the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the rejection of the discharge petition merited interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Tarun Jit Tejpal Vs. State of Goa and AnotherRelied on¶13
Tarun Jit Tejpal Vs. State of Goa and Another, 2019 SCC Online Sc 1053 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sandeep Kumar and 3 Others
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
