Ram Milan v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2024/72/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) allowed a Section 482 application by Ram Milan against the State of U.P.: summoning order dated 27.10.2018 by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ambedkar Nagar set aside and matter remanded, because it indicated Sections 368 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act not mentioned in the charge-sheet (filed only under Sections 363 & 366 IPC); relied on State of Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde 2014 (3) SCC 659; cognizance order dated 27.01.2018; POCSO Act 2012; IPC Sections 363, 366, 368.

What did the court decide?

Summoning order dated 27.10.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ambedkar Nagar set aside; matter remanded to the learned trial court to issue appropriate summoning against the petitioner as per the due procedure of law. ¶¶17

Ram Milan Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning order dated 27.10.2018 passed by the trial court, indicating Sections 368 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act which were not mentioned in the charge-sheet filed against the petitioner (filed only under Sections 363 & 366 IPC), was properly issued.

¶¶13

Court's answer

Applying the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde (2014) 3 SCC 659 — that after cognizance of the charge-sheet a summoning order can be issued only in the sections indicated in the charge-sheet — the Court found that the summoning order dated 27.10.2018 had not been issued properly and was liable to be set aside.

¶¶16

Ratio / Principle

The summoning order dated 27.10.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ambedkar Nagar is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned trial court to issue appropriate summoning against the petitioner as per the due procedure of law.

¶¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Neutral Citation 2024:AHC-LKO:3547 — Application u/s 482 No. 72 of 2024, Ram Milan v. State of U.P. (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Court No. 11; Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.; order dated 11.1.2024). The charge-sheet against the applicant was filed only under Sections 363 & 366 IPC, yet the trial court's summoning order dated 27.10.2018 (Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ambedkar Nagar) indicated Sections 363, 366 & 368 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — sections not mentioned in the charge-sheet (cognizance order dated 27.01.2018). Having regard to the dictum of the Apex Court in State of Gujarat v. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde, 2014 (3) SCC 659 — that after cognizance of the charge-sheet a summoning order can be issued only in the sections indicated in the charge-sheet, though during trial the trial court may subtract or add other sections strictly as per law — the Court found the summoning order dated 27.10.2018 not properly issued, allowed the petition, set aside the summoning order, and remanded the matter to the trial court to issue appropriate summoning against the petitioner as per the due procedure of law. AGA-I confirmed that investigation under Section 368 IPC and the POCSO Act against other accused persons was still pending.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:3547

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 72 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ram Milan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Ashish Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

1. Heard.

¶7

This Court has passed order dated 8.1.2024 which reads as under :

¶8

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Aniruddha Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate-I for the State.

¶9

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the charge-sheet which has been filed against the petitioner under Sections 363 & 366 I.P.C. but the learned trial court has taken cognizance of the charge-sheet against the petitioner under Sections 363, 366 & 368 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 saying that the chargesheet has been filed under those sections.

¶10

3. The perusal thereof reveals that the sections so indicated in the cognizance order dated 27.01.2018 are not mentioned in the charge-sheet which has been filed before the court below.

¶11

4. Therefore, learned Additional Government Advocate-I prays for and is granted two days time to seek specific instructions on that point.

¶12

5. List/ put up this case on 11.01.2024 in the additional cause list within top ten cases. On that date, the matter shall be taken up at 01:00 p.m.."

¶13

In compliance of the aforesaid order Sri Anirudh Kumar Singh, AGA-I has sought complete instructions in the matter and on the basis of instructions he has submitted that the charge-sheet against the present petitioner has been filed only u/s 363 and 366 IPC, however, against other accused persons the investigation under section 368 IPC and under the provisions of POCSO Act is still pending. Therefore, it is clear that while issuing summoning order dated 27.10.2018 the learned trial court has indicated those sections under which the charge-sheet has not been filed against the petitioner as those sections are 368 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act.

¶14

In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in re: State of Gujarat vs. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde: 2014 (3) SCC 659 has held that after taking cognizance of the charge-sheet the summoning order can be issued only in those sections which

¶15

have been indicated in the charge-sheet, however, during the course of the trial the learned trial court may subtract or add other sections strictly as per law.

¶16

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the dictum of Apex Court in re: State of Gujarat (supra) I find that the summoning order dated 27.10.2018 has not been issued properly, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶17

Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

¶18

The summoning order dated 27.10.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ambedkar Nagar is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial court to issue appropriate summoning against the petitioner as per the due procedure of law.

¶19

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.)

¶20

Order Date :- 11.1.2024 Om

¶21

Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Milan v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Milan v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vishal Saxsena and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Gobind Rai @ Monu Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Asjadullah Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Govt. Lko. and Another

Anwar Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Dayashankar (in Charge Sheet Dayashankar Modanwal) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another

Poonam Nishad and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another