Partly allowed

Prakash Chandra Sharma and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Sept 2024A482/11401/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge High Court of Allahabad, in an application under Section 482 CrPC, set aside an impugned order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Amroha. The High Court held the lower order was illegal because the revisional court did not address the grounds raised in the memo of revision. The matter was remitted to decide afresh within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 7.3.2024 set aside; application remitted to Revisional Court to decide afresh within three months.

Prakash Chandra Sharma and Another vs State of U.P. and… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:144237

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11401 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Prakash Chandra Sharma And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashish Srivastava,G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Abhishek Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vikas Kumar Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for O.P. No.2

¶7

It is very strange that revisional court has mentioned all the grounds raised in the memo of revision submitted before it in paragraph no.5 of the impugned order dated 7.3.2024, however, in the next paragraph i.e. paragraph no.6, revisional court has not even considered grounds mentioned in the preceeding paragraph and entered into a different argument as to whether offence for allegations of firing can be made out for summoning or not, which could not be a ground raised by learned counsel for applicants since it would be against their interest.

¶8

Above referred discrepancy is being not disputed by learned counsel for the complainant, though he submitted that it has not been specifically taken in this application. However, on the basis of records, he has not been able to contradict the above submissions.

¶9

In order to further appreciate above submissions, I have carefully perused the impugned order passed by Revisional Court. Relevant paragraphs no.5 and 6 are reproduced hereinafter:

¶10

"5. ननिगररानिनीकररार्तागण दराररा प्रस्रतुर ननिगररानिनी इस आधरार पर ययोजजिर ककी गयनी नक नविचरारण न्यरायरालय दराररा पराररर आललौच्य आददेश विरास्रनविकररा, सराक्ष्य एविवं नविजध दराररा प्रनरपरानदर प् र नविधरानिनों कदे प्रनरककल हहै रथरा ननिरराधरार हहै और ननिरस्र हयोनिदे ययोग्य हहै। नविचरारण न्यरायरालय निदे आललौच्य रलबनी आददेश पराररर करनिदे सदे पकविर्ता पतराविलनी करा सम्यक अविलयोकनि निहहीं नकयरा और मनिमरानिदे ढवंग सदे रलबनी आददेश

¶11

पराररर नकयरा हहै। नविचरारण न्यरायरालय निदे आललौच्य आददेश पराररर कररदे समय न्यरानयक मसस्रष्क करा प्रययोग निहहीं नकयरा रथरा मशनीनिनीककर ढवंग सदे आललौच्य रलबनी आददेश पराररर नकयरा हहै। पररविरादनी निदे Malicious Intention कदे सराथ फजिर्जी पररविराद अमरयोहरा अपर मतुख्य न्यरानयक मजजिस्ट ट - प्रथम अमरयोहरा कदे न्यरायरालय मम ययोजजिर नकयरा हहै। जिबनक पररविरादनी जजिलरा ररामपतुर करा ननिविरासनी हहै। पररविराद मम पररविरादनी रथरा गविराहरानि सनी०डब्ल्यक० । , सनी०डब्ल्यक० 2 कदे ब्यरानिरार मदे बडरा नविरयोधराभरास हहै। गविराहरानि एक -दकसरदे कदे ब्यरानि करा समथर्तानि निहहीं कररदे बसल्क Contradict कररदे हह। जजिससदे सराक्ष्य मम सन्ददेह उत्पन्न हयोररा हहै। पररविरादनी निदे पररविराद मदे रथरा धराररा 200 द०प्र०सवं० कदे बयरानि मम घटनिरा नदनिरावंक 13.02.2022 ककी दशरार्ताई हहै। जिबनक सनी०डब्ल्यक० 2 सरदेन्द्र कतुमरार निदे धराररा 202 द०प्र०स० कदे ब्यरानि मदे घटनिरा 23.02.2022 ककी अवंनकर करराई। जजिससदे घटनिरा कदे फजिर्जी हयोनिदे करा सबकर नमलररा हहै , परन्रतु नविचरारण न्यरायरालय निदे आददेश सदे पकविर्ता पतराविलनी करा सम्यक पररशनीलनि नि करकदे करानिकनिनी ततुनट ककी हहै और इस रथ्य पर ध्यरानि निहहीं नदयरा। पररविरादनी निदे घटनिरा नदनिरावंक 13.02.2022 ककी दशरार्ताई हहै परन्रतु पररविराद नदनिरावंक 14.03.2022 ठनीक एक मराह बराद ययोजजिर नकयरा, जजिसकदे नविलम्ब करा कयोई स्पषनीकरण पतराविलनी प्रलदेखनों एविवं मलौजखक ब्यरानिरार मम उलदेख निहहीं हहै, जजिसदे निजिरअवंदराजि करकदे रूटनीनि विदे मम आललौच्य आददेश पराररर नकयरा गयरा हहै, जियो खसणडर हयोनिदे ययोग्य हहै।

¶12

अरतः उक्त वि अन्य करारणनों कदे आधरार पर प्रस्रतुर ननिगररानिनी कयो अवंगनीककर कर स्विनीकरार फरमरायरा जिराकर नविचरारण न्यरायरालय करा आललौच्य रलबनी आददेश नदनिरावंनकर 08.04.2022 अपरास्र नकयदे जिरानिदे ककी यराचनिरा ककी गयनी हहै। 6- उभयपकनों ककी बहस सतुनिनी गई। मकल पतराविलनी वि प्रस्रतुर ननिगररानिनी पतराविलनी करा पररशनीलनि नकयरा गयरा। पतराविलनी कदे पररशनीलनि सदे स्पष हहै नक नविपकनी सवंख्यरा 2 निदे अनभयतुक्तगण कदे ऊपर जिरानि सदे मरारनिदे ककी निनीयर सदे गयोलनी चलरानिदे वि चहैनि लकटनिदे करा भनी कथनि अपनिदे बयरानि अन्रग र ्ता धराररा 200 दवं०प्र०सवं० मम नकयरा हहै, परन्रतु इस सम्बन्ध मम न्यरायरालय कयो अन्य पररसस्थनरयनों करा सवंजरानि लदेनिरा भनी आविश्यक हहै। घटनिरा सतुबह 11.30 बजिदे मलौह० करायस्र करालयोनिनी नविकरास भविनि कदे पनीछदे ककी बरराई गई हहै। घटनिरा कदे समय यनद फरायर हहआ हयोररा रयो यह बरार

¶13

आस-परास रहनिदे विरालदे लयोगनों कयो जरार हयोरनी। इनि पररसस्थनरयनों मम नविचरारण न्यरायरालय दराररा पराररर आददेश मम कयोई रथ्यरात्मक अथविरा नविजधक ततुनट निहहीं हहै। प्रश्निगर आददेश मम नकसनी हस्रकदेप ककी आविश्यकररा निहहीं हहै।

¶14

उपरयोक्त नविमरर्ता कदे आधरार पर न्यरायरालय करा मर हहै नक नविचरारण न्यरायरालय दराररा पराररर प्रश्निगर आददेश पतुष नकयदे जिरानिदे ययोग्य हहै। ननिगररानिनी ननिरस्र हयोनिदे ययोग्य हहै।" 5. Above referred paragraph no.5 has disclosed major grounds taken in the memo of revision. However, in the next paragraph i.e. paragraph no.6, revisional court has failed to consider said grounds and has travelled beyond it, therefore, impugned order dated 7.3.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.2 Amroha, becomes illegal and is hereby set-aside.

¶15

On the request of learned counsel for parties, this application is remitted back to Revisional Court to decide it a fresh on basis of submissions and memo of revision expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from today.

¶16

With the aforesaid observation/direction this application is disposed of. Order Date :- 5.9.2024 SB

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prakash Chandra Sharma and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Chandra Sharma and Another 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

Mangal Basoai and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Ummehani @ Sheeba @ Sheeba Gajali vs State of U.P. and Another

Anand Verma vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rasik Agarwal and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Rubi Suryavanshi vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonu Shah vs State of U.P. and 2 Others