Dismissed

Pradeep @ Bittu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Apr 2023CRLR/1045/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision challenged the framing of charges under Sections 411, 413, 414, and 482 I.P.C. holding ten cases together. The court held that Section 219 Cr.P.C. is discretionary, and objections regarding charge based on common recovery must be raised during trial.

What did the court decide?

The revision is dismissed; the objection regarding clubbing of cases under Section 219 Cr.P.C. is not accepted.

Pradeep @ Bittu Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1045 of 2023

¶3

Revisionist :- Pradeep @ Bittu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Gyan Prakash Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that by impugned order dated 29.11.2022, the charge has been framed against the revisionist under Section 411, 413, 414 and 482 I.P.C. The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist for challenging the order framing charge is that the revisionist has already been involved in other crime numbers and all the crime numbers pertain to the same charges and therefore in compliance of Section 219 Cr.P.C. all the cases should have been clubbed together and charges should have been framed.

¶6

The second claim of the revisionist is to challenge the order framing charge to the effect that the charge has been framed under Section 411 I.P.C. against the revisionist in respect of common recovery and on the basis of the recovery made on a single day. The revisionist has been slapped with ten cases. He submits that in all cases, Section 411 is being prosecuted against the revisionist and the same is not tenable.

¶7

It is to be seen that under Section 219 Cr.P.C., the discretion is vested with the trial court to frame charge and tied together the number of offences where the offences are of the same kind. The provision is discretionary in nature and there is no direction of law that the same is to be construed as a mandatory provision. Learned counsel for the revisionist could not show any provision of law which embarks that Section 219 is a mandatory provision.

¶8

It is also to be noted that the objection with regard to framing of charge under Section 411 I.P.C. on the basis of common recovery is an objection which can be raised during trial court proceedings when the defence is raised. The wrong framing of the charge may ipso facto not amount to the proceedings being invalidated. Even according to the learned counsel for the revisionist, the trial court is always empowered to change the charge against the revisionist provided the cause of the revisionist is not prejudiced at the time of framing of the charge as such, issues can be decided. It is left

¶9

open for the revisionist to raise the issue at the time of trial which shall be considered in accordance with law.

¶10

With the aforesaid observations, the revision is disposed of.

¶11

Order Date :- 21.4.2023 Sumit Kumar

¶12

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

Pradeep @ Bittu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep @ Bittu 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

Vivek Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Manish Parmar Vs Smt. Veenakshi Verma

Aftab Alam Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Meenal Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sunil Kumar Saroj Vs State of U.P.

Lokesh Vs State of U.P.