Allowed

Surendra Nath v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC18 Oct 2024A227/4483/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Article 227 writ petition challenged orders rejecting the petitioner's discharge application. The High Court held that the revisional court failed to consider the material Forensic Science Laboratory report regarding thumb impression mismatch. The petition was allowed, and the matter remitted to reconsider the application.

What did the court decide?

Both orders dated 22.06.2023 and 30.11.2023 set aside; matter remitted to CJM Sonbhadra to decide discharge application afresh considering FSL report.

Surendra Nath vs State of Up and Another — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:185696

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4483 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Surendra Nath Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Tripathi,Ashok Kumar Mishra,Rakesh Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

In pursuance to order dated 18.10.2024, notices have already been issued to respondent no.2 and in pursuance to the same, steps have already been taken and the same has been served upon respondent no.2 on dated 30.10.2024, but till today none appeared on behalf of respondent no.2 either in person or through counsel and as such there is no option left but to initiate in the matter only after hearing arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as pleadings available in the records.

¶8

The factual matrix of the matter derives that one imposter executed a registered sale deed in favour of one co-accused Sohan Lal and it is the admitted fact that the property belongs to respondent no.2 and at the behest of respondent no.2 himself information has been registered at Case Crime No.845 of 2011, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police StationRobertsganj, District- Sonbhadra. During the course of investigation, the signatures which has been put by the said imposter has not been matched, which culminated into exoneration of the main person/accused, but at the same time charge-sheet has been preferred against the petitioner, whereupon cognizance under section 190 Cr.P.C. has been taken up by learned Magistrate.

¶9

Being aggrieved with the initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner, he preferred discharge application on the ground that the petitioner under the capacity of marginal witness is having no role in the alleged incident in which the information has been registered as Case Crime No.845 of 2011, but the same has been declined by learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra vide order dated 22.06.2023. The order dated 22.06.2023 passed by learned Chief Judicial

¶10

Magistrate, Sonbhadra has been put under challenge while preferring Criminal Revision No.85 of 2023 (Surendra Nath vs. State of U.P. and Others), wherein crystal clear stand has been taken up by the petitioner that the thumb impression which is available over the disputed document registered in shape of sale deed executed by the exonerated accused is not matched with the thumb impression of the petitioner and the document is altogether available before the learned Magistrate, but inspite of the same discharge application has been rejected vide order dated 22.06.2023.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the specific stand has been negated by learned revisional court and no reasoning or finding has been given while passing order dated 30.11.2023, which impugned the present petition.

¶12

While assailing both the orders dated 22.06.2023 and 30.11.2023, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that role of the petitioner, if assumed only as a marginal witness, no peculiar gain has been obtained in shape of executing the documents by the petitioner, moreover as per the evidentiary documents available before the court concerned, there is no match with the thumb impression of the petitioner with the thumb impression which is available over the instrument. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that petitioner is also having no criminal history credited in his favour, rather he is rendering his services as a Clerk to a practicing Advocate of District Court, Sonbhadra.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the petition and rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for the petitioner by way of supporting orders dated 22.06.2023 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra and 30.11.2023 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.1, Sonbhadra and submitted that finding has been recorded by learned revisional court regarding jurisdiction available before the court under section 397 Cr.P.C., wherein learned revisional court has to see the correctness, validity and authenticity of the order passed by learned trial court and the same has been performed while passing order dated 30.11.2023.

¶14

After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties, the material evidence which has not been taken into consideration by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in shape of Forensic Science Laboratory report and due to nonconsideration of the same, learned revisional court was duty incumbent while exercising powers under section 397 Cr.P.C. to rectify the incorrectness involved in the order dated 22.06.2023,

¶15

but at the same time learned revisional court failed to exercise the same and summarily rejected the pleadings available while passing order dated 30.11.2023.

¶16

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, once it is crystal clear through Forensic Science Laboratory report itself that there is mismatch of the thumb impression of the petitioner with the thumb impression which is available in the alleged document in shape of registered sale deed executed by one imposter and at the same time when it is transpired during investigation that the thumb impressions are not matched with the persons who have been implicated in the F.I.R. at Case Crime No.845 of 2011, there is hardly any occasion available before learned court concerned to drag the petitioner into unwarranted criminal litigation.

¶17

In the light of above discussion, both the orders dated 22.06.2023 and 30.11.2023 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra and learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.1, Sonbhadra, respectively are hereby set-aside, the matter is remitted back to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra/court concerned for deciding the discharge application preferred at the behest of petitioner as fresh in the light of Forensic Science Laboratory report, which is material document to be considered at the same time.

¶18

The instant petition stands allowed accordingly.

¶19

Order Date :- 27.11.2024 Saif

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Surendra Nath v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Nath v. State of Up 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anand Kumar Pathak vs State of U.P. and Another

Mister and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sushil Kumar Dwivedi vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Badama Devi vs State of Up and 3 Others

Smt Twinkle Dikshit vs Ved Prakash Sharma and 7 Others

Mohd. Alim vs State of Up and 3 Others