Dismissed

Sunita Pal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC10 Mar 2022CRLR/832/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision challenged an order refusing to add Section 376 I.P.C. while summoning accused persons. The High Court held that adding sections and framing charges must occur after hearing both parties at the stage of framing charges, not during summons. The revision was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The revision was dismissed with the observation that the prayer to add Section 376 I.P.C. is to be decided at the stage of framing charges.

Sunita Pal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 832 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- Sunita Pal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Om Prakash Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This revision has been preferred against the order dated 13.1.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist, Varanasi in Case No. 1662 of 2022, State Vs. Rajendra Pal and others, arising out of case crime no. 63 of 2021, under sections 147, 323, 354kha, 504, 506 I.P.C. police station Chitaipur District Varanasi.

¶7

By the impugned order, the learned lower court disposed of the application dated 12.1.2022 moved by the revisionist, wherein the prayer has been made to summon Kishori Pal and Shiv Kumar under Section 376 I.P.C., with the observations that the file is fixed for appearance only. The charge has not been framed till date. Under what section/s the charges are to be framed shall be decided only at the stage of framing of charges. Learned court below found no reason to add Section 376 I.P.C. at the stage of summoning the accused persons.

¶8

The present revision has been filed on the ground that apart from this application moved before the court below, the court below was having statements of the lady / victim under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. wherein offence punishable under section 376 I.P.C. is disclosed, so the prayer for setting aside the impugned order is made being it arbitrary and illegal.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer.

¶10

From the perusal of the record, it is admitted fact that when the application dated 12.1.2022 was moved before the court below, the file was fixed for appearance of the accused persons. Vide order dated 13.1.2022, the learned lower court has not rejected the application dated 12.1.2022 above rather the Officer concerned has given finding that at that stage, he did not find any reason to add Section 376 I.P.C. to the case or to summon the persons named above. The court below has very well mentioned in the order impugned that the charges have not been

¶11

framed yet, it would be framed after hearing the learned counsel for the parties. Hence, the approach of the revisionist before this court is not proper as the relief prayed for will be decided at the stage of framing charge after hearing the both parties and not at the stage of summoning the accused persons. If it is argued that the prayer was made to summon the persons mentioned above under section 376 I.P.C., it also cannot be said a proper stage, as according to law, at the stage of summoning the court cannot add sections on the prayer of the victim/ first informant rather this matter is to be decided after hearing the learned counsel for the parties at the stage of framing of charges.

¶12

There is no illegality, irregularity and impropriety in the impugned order dated 13.1.2022 passed by the court below. The revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶13

The revision is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 10.3.2022 Gss

¶15

Digitally signed by GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA Date: 2022.03.11 17:07:01 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sunita Pal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Pal 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

Munni Ram Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Brijesh Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Km. Shimpi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amar Nath Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ashok Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Bhavar Pal Vs State of U.P.