Disposed

Pinku Singh @ Ramveer Singh and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2023A482/8121/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge permitted applicants to file a discharge application within three weeks and directed the trial court to decide it within forty-five days with a reasoned order, disposing of the Section 482 application without adjudicating merits.

What did the court decide?

Permission to file discharge application within three weeks; trial court to decide within forty-five days with reasoned order.

Pinku Singh @ Ramveer Singh and Others Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:59638

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8121 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Pinku Singh @ Ramveer Singh And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home And Another

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Shailesh Kumar Singh,Ravinder Kumar

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶8

Heard Sri Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Nirmal Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

Instant application has been filed with prayer to set aside the revisional order dated 16.11.2021 passed by the 3rd Additional Session Judge Lakhimpur kheri in Criminal Revision No. 40/2019 and also set aside the summoning order dated 4.10.2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate court No. 1 Lakhimpur Kheri in Case No.2516-17 arising out of Case crime no. 258 of 2013 U/S 307,341,324,323,504,506& 427 IPC, P.S. Maigalganj District Kheri, and also against the impugned charge sheet No. 81/2013 as well as 81-A/2013 and further prayed to set aside the entire proceedings of Case No.2516-17 crime no. 258/2013 U/S 307,341,324,323,504,5068 427 IPC, P.S. Maigalganj District Kheri, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.1 Kheri.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that initially an FIR was lodged under section 341, 324, 323, 504, 506 and 427 of IPC and thereafter, the applicants appeared before the trial court and were released on bail. He added that as soon as they were released on bail, the Investigating Officer

¶11

recorded supplementary statements of the complainant and thereafter, filed a supplementary chargesheet, under section 307 of IPC, whereafter, the applicants were wrongly summoned under section 307 of IPC and the same was challenged before the revisional court, that too was rejected.

¶12

The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is the the injury report itself is evident that there is no injury over the vital part of body of the injured person and therefore, the ingredients of section 307 of IPC would not attract in this matter. He added that learned trial court without application of mind and without recording any reason, has also taken cognizance of the offence under section 307 of IPC and summoned the applicants. Thus, submission is that the chargesheet which was filed under section 307 of IPC, vitiates in the eyes of law.

¶13

Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the Investigating Officer after recording the statement of the injured and while going through the injury inflicted on the body of the injured, filed the supplementary chargesheet under section 307 of IPC and there is no erroneousness in filing the chargesheet.

¶14

After the aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the interest of justice would be subserved, if this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit the present applicants to file discharge application before the trial court concerned and the same may be directed to be decided within stipulated period of time as may be fixed this Court.

¶15

Learned counsel for the State has no objection so far as the above-said contention is concerned.

¶16

Considering the aforesaid submissions, the present applicants

¶17

are permitted to move discharge application before the trial court, within a period of three weeks and if, such an application is moved, the trial court is directed to decided the same within further period of forty-five days, in-accordance with law, with the speaking and reasoned order.

¶18

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant application is hereby disposed of.

¶19

Order Date :- 18.9.2023 Mayank

¶20

Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pinku Singh @ Ramveer Singh and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pinku Singh @ Ramveer Singh and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arjun Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Dept. of Home and Others

Ravi Prakash @ Ravi Prakash Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Sarvesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Sarita Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Heera Lal Rathaur and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Vinod Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P.