Allowed

Bhopal Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2024A227/8433/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that impugned orders of Chief Judicial Magistrate and revisional court setting aside final report and summoning petitioner were illegal. Apex Court set aside without merits both orders and remitted matter to chief judicial magistrate to decide protest petition fresh, crediting investigation report.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 07.06.2008 and 30.05.2024 set aside; matter remitted to Chief Judicial Magistrate to decide protest petition afresh after considering investigation report.

Bhopal Singh vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:189782

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8433 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Bhopal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- D.M.Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially F.I.R. has been lodged at the behest of petitioner on dated 30.03.2024 registered at Case Crime No.105 of 2024 and for the same incident a separate F.I.R. has been lodged at the behest of respondent no.2, which was registered at Case Crime No.1061 of 2024. In pursuance to the F.I.R. preferred at the behest of respondent no.2 after conducting detailed investigation, final report has been preferred by concerned Investigating Officer by way of exonerating petitioner, but in the F.I.R. lodged on behalf of petitioner, charge-sheet has been preferred against respondent no.2.

¶8

Being aggrieved with the final report submitted in favour of petitioner, respondent no.2 preferred protest petition for seeking cancellation of the final report, wherein learned court concerned accepting the same by way of summoning the petitioner under section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. vide order dated 07.06.2008.

¶9

Being aggrieved with the order dated 07.06.2008, petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No.64 of 2023 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 30.05.2024, which impugned the present petition.

¶10

While challenging the order dated 07.06.2008 passed by learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat and order dated 30.05.2024 passed by learned revisional court/Additional Session Judge, Court No.4, Baghpat in the protest petition preferred at the behest of respondent no.2 and criminal revision preferred on behalf of petitioner respectively, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that summoning of the petitioner in pursuance to section

¶11

307 I.P.C. under section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. is only on the basis of presumption and not on the basis of strict proof of evidence, which has been duly investigated by concerned Investigating Officer, through which the petitioner was exonerated.

¶12

At the stage of deciding criminal revision, the same was declined only on the ground that in spite of summoning orders and arrest warrant, petitioner is not appearing before the court concerned, although the merit of the matter has not been discussed which contains illegality involved in the order dated 07.06.2008.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that while summoning the petitioner under section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C., learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat never discussed with regard to report submitted under section 173(2) Cr.P.C., only on the basis of medical examination report, which has already been appended at the time of preferring final report through case diary, it is presumed that there might be a chance for opening fire by the petitioner through which some pallets touched the feets of the injured. If the finding recorded by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat can be put under litmus in shape of corroborating the facts through final report preferred by concerned Investigating Officer, the same has to be discussed and specific finding has to be recorded while not entertaining and affirming the final report only at the behest of protest petition preferred by respondent no.2.

¶14

At the time of adjudication of criminal revision, the entire detail facts have been mentioned and only on the ground that petitioner is not appearing before the court concerned in spite of arrest warrant, the same was dismissed.

¶15

Both the orders which impugned the present petition is lacking on merits in absence of crystal clear finding for not considering the investigation report at the stage of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the grounds taken up while preferring criminal revision, the same has not been discussed and decided only on the ground of non-appearance of petitioner before the court concerned are liable to be set-aside.

¶16

Since the petition preferred by the petitioner is broadly on the ground of legal arguments and as such considering the same, provision for issuing notice to the respondents are hereby dispensed with.

¶17

In view of the aforementioned discussion, orders dated

¶18

07.06.2008 passed by learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat and dated 30.05.2024 passed by learned revisional court/Additional Session Judge, Court No.4, Baghpat are hereby set-aside, the matter is remitted back at the stage of summoning before learned court concerned/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat to decide the protest petition of the respondent no.2 as fresh with due credence be given to the report submitted by concerned Investigating Officer.

¶19

The instant petition stands allowed accordingly.

¶20

Order Date :- 3.12.2024 Saif

¶21

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

Bhopal Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhopal Singh 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

Adnan @ Iddu @ Mohd. Adnaan vs State of U.P. and Another

Yameen vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Akhilesh Kumar vs State of Up and 5 Others

Dinesh Chandra vs State of Up and Another

Vishram Singh vs State of Up

Mohd Jeeshan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others