High Court dismissed criminal revision regarding charge framing. Ordered revisionist to file discharge application before trial Court.
Impugned order set aside; Revisionist directed to file discharge application within two weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:101607
Court No. - 90
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5177 of 2022
Revisionist :- Akash Nagar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Akhilesh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.
Heard Sri Akhilesh, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.
None is present on behalf of opposite party no.2 although notice has been served.
This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 09.11.2022 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge/ (POCSO) Court no.1 Aligarh in S.S.T. No.220 of 2020 (State Vs. Akash Nagar) under Sections 354, 323 I.P.C. and Sections 7/8 POCSO Act, arising out of Case Crime No.88 of 2019, P.S. Gandhi Park, District- Aligarh. By the impugned order, the learned trial Court has farmed charges against the revisionist-accused.
The learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the F.I.R. of this case was lodged by Mahipal Singh who is father of the victim and he is not an eye-witness of the incident. The victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not supported the allegations of the F.I.R.. The victim has categorically stated that she has gone on her own will and the accused has not committed any indecent act or molested her. So, there is no sufficient evidence against the revisionist-accused but the learned trial Court, by the impugned order, has framed charge against the
revisionist-accused. The impugned order has been passed without appreciation of evidence and material available on record and is arbitrary and illegal.
Learned AGA for the State submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order.
Perusal of the impugned order reveals that no specific ground of discharge has been claimed before the trial Court. The trial Court has not considered the grounds available at the time of framing of charge. In these circumstances, it will be appropriate to direct the revisionist to move a proper discharge application before the trial Court assailing all the grounds available to him. The learned trial Court after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties pass a reasoned order in respect of framing of charge.
From the aforesaid observations, the revision is allowed and the order dated 09.11.2022 is set aside. The revisionist may file discharge application before the trial Court within a period of two weeks. If any discharge application is filed before the trial Court within a period of two weeks, the learned trial Court shall, after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, pass reasoned order on it.
The connected Application u/s 482 No.18595 of 2020 is delinked from this case.
Order Date :- 11.5.2023 SP/-
Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Akash Nagar
State Of U.P.
Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
