Disposed

Jang Bahadur Patel v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2023/715/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision argued that charges of dacoity and unlawful assembly could not be levelled against a single person. The High Court set aside the order dismissing the discharge application, directing the trial court to frame charges in accordance with Section 228(1)(a) Cr.P.C. by examining evidence procured during investigation.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 15.05.2023 was set aside and the learned trial court was directed to frame charges strictly in accordance with the provisions of law.

Jang Bahadur Patel Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 29

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 715 of 2023

¶3

Revisionist :- Jang Bahadur Patel

¶4

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow And Another

¶5

Counsel for Revisionist :- Arvind Kumar,Shivendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.

¶7

The present criminal revision has been filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C against the order dated 15.05.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ NDPS Act Court No. 10 Barabanki rejecting the discharge application moved by the revisionist.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that as per Sections 141 and 391 IPC there must be at least five persons for forming 'unlawful assembly' and committing 'dacoity'. The charge of forming unlawful assembly and committing dacoity against single person cannot be levelled in view of provisions contained in Sections 141 and 391 IPC. It is further submitted as such charges levelled against the appellant (single person) under Section 147, 148, 427, 447, 504, 323, 506, 395 IPC is against the provision of law and is unsustainable. The dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature which has been given colour of criminal case. There is no eye witness of the aforesaid incident. It is further submitted that charge sheet has been filed against a single person for offence under Section 141, 391, 147, 148, 427, 447, 504, 323, 506 395 IPC, hence it is

¶9

prayed that the impugned order dated 15.05.2023 may be quashed.

¶10

Per contra learned A.G.A has opposed the revision and submitted initially FIR was lodged against 10-12 persons, however, the appellant has been charge-sheeted in the instant case on the basis of statement of complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

¶11

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

¶12

A perusal of the impugned order dated 15.05.2023 goes to show that application for discharge moved by the present revisionist was dismissed on the ground that charge sheet has been filed against the revisionist and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki committed the file to the Sessions Court. Learned trial court relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Palvinder Singh Vs. Balvinder singh 2009(1) JIC 73 (SC); State of Tamil Nadu Vs. N.Suresh Rajan 2014 Crl. L.J page 1444 SC found sufficient ground for charging the revisionist under Section 147, 148, 427, 447, 504, 323, 506 395 IPC and dismissed the application for discharge on the ground that at the time of framing of the charge the court has to consider the matter on record and evidence procured at the time of investigation has to be seen. Before proceeding further, it

¶13

will be appropriate to reproduce Section 228(A) of Cr.P.C:

¶14

"228. Framing of charge.

¶15

1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which-

¶16

(a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and thereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant- cases instituted on a police report;

¶17

(b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused."

¶18

In the light of provision of Section 228 (1) (a) Cr.P.C it is settled principle of law that if the evidence procured by the investigating officer at the time of investigation discloses some cognizable offence and at the time of framing of charge the court concerned has to see whether ingredients of charges is made out besides the charges can be altered, amended at any time .

¶19

In light of the above discussion, the order dated 15.05.2023 is hereby set aside. Learned trial court is directed to frame charges strictly in accordance with the provisions of law.

¶20

The revisionist is directed to appear before the court below on the next day fixed.

¶21

The revision is disposed of accordingly.

¶22

(Renu Agarwal,J.)

¶23

Order Date :- 10.7.2023 Nadeem

¶24

Digitally signed by :- NADEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jang Bahadur Patel v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jang Bahadur Patel v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow 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

Sumit Rastogi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Maya Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and 12 Others

Buddha @ Buddha Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Smt. Jugnu and Another Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Jiyalal and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Joodu @ Suresh Kumar Vs State of U.P.