Remanded

Ram Krishna v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Mar 2022CRLR/2514/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision No. 2514 of 2021, the Allahabad High Court set aside the Additional District Judge's order dated 06.09.2021 which rejected the revisionist's application under Section 217 Cr.P.C. The trial court was directed to pass a fresh reasoned order after hearing both parties within two months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 06.09.2021 set aside. Trial court directed to pass fresh order within two months after hearing both parties.

Ram Krishna Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2514 of 2021

¶3

Revisionist :- Ram Krishna Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajesh Kumar,Manoj Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Neeraj Shukla

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Neeraj Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This criminal revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 06.09.2021 passed by Additional District Judge-6, Allahabad in Sessions Trial No.1123 of 2004, State vs. Ram Krishna and others, under Sections 302, 201, 363 and 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Sarai Memrej Janghai, District Prayagraj relating to case crime no.111of 2004.

¶8

It is argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that the impugned order is neither speaking order nor reasoned order. The facts of the application paper no.184 Kha have not been considered by the learned court below, hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶9

Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 argued that impugned order is well reasoned and it has been passed on the basis of the order dated 25.09.2012 passed by this Court, therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.

¶10

It is admitted fact that at the time of passing judgement learned court below added Section 364/34 I.P.C. and according to the accused persons before adding this Section they were not heard in this matter. Previous application filed by the accused persons

¶11

was rejected by learned court below vide order dated 18.08.2012. Against this order Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed before this Court which was rejected by this Court. After that they moved an application under Section 217 Cr.P.C. for recall of the witnesses as charges were altered but this application has been rejected by giving wrong reason.

¶12

From perusal of the impugned order dated 06.09.2021 it is found that learned court below has rejected the application paper no.184 Kha of the revisionist on the ground that in the order dated 18.08.2012 this Court (High Court) has refused to interfere. In the light of the order dated 25.09.2012 the application paper no.184 Kha has been rejected. The order dated 25.09.20212 is appended at page 08 of the supplementary affidavit.

¶13

Order dated 18.08.2012 was passed on the application of the accused persons that they were not given an opportunity of being heard before adding Section 364/34 IPC to the charge against them. Order dated 06.09.2021 has been passed on an application paper no.184 kha moved under Section 217 Cr.P.C. seeking opportunity to recall the prosecution witnesses for cross examination after adding charge under Section 364 I.P.C. Hence order dated 18.08.2012 and order dated 06.09.2021 are separate orders on separate issues. The order dated 06.09.2021 is neither a speaking order nor a reasoned order rather it has been passed on some confusion. The facts mentioned therein do not match with the facts.

¶14

Thus, in my opinion, it is found that learned court below has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in it properly. Impugned order dated 06.09.2021 deserves to be set aside

¶15

The criminal revision is allowed. The impugned order dated

¶16

06.09.2021 is set aside.

¶17

Learned court below is directed to pass a fresh order on application paper no.184 Kha after providing an opportunity of hearing to both the parties expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before that court.

¶18

Order Date :- 7.3.2022 Asha

¶19

Digitally signed by ASHA Date: 2022.03.09 17:00:23 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Krishna v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Krishna 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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amarnath Vs State of U.P.

Neeraj Vs State of U.P.

Akil Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Santosh Kumar Shukla and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Mohammad Saleem Vs State of U.P. and Another