Dismissed

Gautam Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Jun 2023A482/10752/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging a remand order allowing a criminal revision. The A.G.A. argued the order was not vague and no illegality existed as the Magistrate failed to exercise jurisdiction, and applicants were only prospective accused. The court accepted these submissions.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

Gautam Singh and Another Vs State of U.P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:125182

¶3

Reserved on 09.05.2023

¶4

Delivered on 14.06.2023

¶5

Court No. - 75

¶6

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10752 of 2023

¶7

Applicant :- Gautam Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satyaveer Singh,Rajrshi Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶8

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶9

Heard Mr. Dileep Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Satyaveer Singh, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶10

Perused the record.

¶11

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the order dated 06.12.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge MP/MLA Court No. 13 Aligarh, in Criminal Revision No. 209 of 2018 (Vinay Kumar Varshney Vs. State of U.P. and others), whereby aforementioned criminal revision, arising out of order dated 08.02.2018 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh rejecting the protest petition filed by the first informant/opposite party-2 has been set aside. Consequently, the revision has been allowed and the matter has been remanded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for decision afresh in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgement.

¶12

Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 16.06.2007, the first informant/opposite 2 Dinesh Kumar Varshney lodged a prompt F.I.R. dated 16.06.2007, which was registered

¶13

¶14

as Case Crime No. 523 of 2007 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 120B I.P.C.. In the aforesaid F.I.R., five persons namely Gautam, Surendra, Narendra, Arun and Ajay Yadav, have been nominated as named accused.

¶15

As per the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R., it is alleged that on 16.06.2007 at around 8.00 a.m., named accused with a common intention fired shot at the first informant/opposite party-2, on account of which, he sustained fire-arm injury.

¶16

After aforesaid F.I.R. was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of aforementioned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. He examined the first informant and various persons under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On the basis of above and other material collected by him during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that no offence as complained of is established as per material collected by him during the course of investigation. Accordingly, Investigating Officer submitted the police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. (final report no. 76 of 2008) dated 26.04.2008.

¶17

Feeling aggrieved by the abovementioned police report, the first informant/opposite party-2 filed a protest petition dated 14.09.2009 against the same before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh.

¶18

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, vide order dated 24.01.2017 rejected the protest petition filed by first informant/opposite party-2 and and accepted the police report (final report) referred to above.

¶19

The order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh was carried in revision by first informant/opposite party-2 and was registered as Criminal Revision No. 209/2018 (Vinay Kumar Varshney Vs. State of U.P. and others). Aforesaid criminal revision came to be allowed, vide order dated 06.12.2022, whereby the order dated 08.02.2018 passed the concerned Magistrate was set aside and the matter was remanded to the concerned Magistrate for decision a fresh in the light of the observations

¶20

¶21

made particularly in paragraph 10 of the order.. It is against this order dated 06.12.2022 the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by prospective accused.

¶22

At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection by submitting that the order impugned in present application is an order of remand. Considering the observations made by Revisional Court in paragraph-10 of the order impugned, it cannot be said that the remand order passed by revisional court is vague. As such, no interference as warranted by this Court. Attention of the Court was then invited to the order dated 24.01.2017 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh and on basis thereof, it is urged by the learned A.GA. that since the concerned Magistrate failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him, no illegality can be said to have been committed by revisional court in passing the order impugned in present application. According to the learned A.G.A., applicants are prospective accused and they have not yet been summoned by court below. It is only when the applicants are summoned by court below, a right to challenge the order impugned in present application shall accrue to the applicants. It is thus urged that no judicial error has been committed by court below in passing the order impugned. As such no question of law and fact is involved in present application, therefore, same is liable to be dismissed.

¶23

When confronted with above, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Satyaveer Singh, the learned counsel for applicants could not overcome the same.

¶24

As a result, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

¶25

It is accordingly dismissed

¶26

Order Date :-14.06.2023 YK

¶27

Digitally signed by :- YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gautam Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gautam Singh and Another 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arvind Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Chandan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Niranjan @ Roopi Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Kumar Chaurasiya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Janakraj Vs State of U.P.

Dilip Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another