Disposed

Rajeev Kumar @ Munendra Dwivedi v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Feb 2024CRLA/384/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal filed to quash the trial court's order rejecting an application to summon witnesses. The High Court noted the transfer of investigation from local police to C.B.C.I.D., directed the trial court to submit a report on whether initial witnesses were recorded, and stayed judgment until the next listing.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued to private respondent; case listed for 22.02.2024; trial court directed to report on initial investigation; judgment pronouncement stayed.

Rajeev Kumar @ Munendra Dwivedi vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 384 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- Rajeev Kumar @ Munendra Dwivedi Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶4

Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjay Singh Chauhan,Ayodhya Prasad Mishra A.P. Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Ravi Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present appeal has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 02.02.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur in Spl. S.T. No. 225 of 2021 arising out of Cr. No. 170 of 2015 U/s 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Sandana, District- Sitapur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that F.I.R. No. 170 of 2015 U/s 342 I.P.C. was lodged on 06.05.2015 on written complaint of Kamlesh Kumar s/o late Pancham Lal against Pappu s/o Shyamu and Sunita d/o Shyamu. He further submits that the investigation was initially conducted by local police, thereafter, further investigation was conducted by C.B.C.I.D. in pursuance of government order dated 09.07.2018. He further submits that charge-sheet dated 25.05.2021 was submitted by Investigating Officer of C.B.C.I.D. against five persons including the appellant; the said charge-sheet was submitted by mentioning the names of 43 witnesses. He further submits that earlier Investigating Officers of the case in question are Dy. Superintendent of Police- Sri Charan Singh, Dy. Superintendent of Police- Sri Devendra Kumar, Dy. Superintendent of PoliceSri J.K. Singh and Sub Inspector- Sri Mukhram Yadav; the aforesaid Investigating Officers conducted the investigation at initial stage by recording the statement of independent witnesses, namely, Mohan s/o Sri Mahesh and Mohal Lal s/o Sri Kailash Gautam. He further submits that after conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of appellant was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 03.01.2024, thereafter, opportunity for the defense was provided to appellant as appellant moved an application on 16.01.2024 for summoning the witnesses, namely, Dy. Superintendent of Police- Sri Charan Singh, Dy. Superintendent of Police- Sri Devendra Kumar, Dy. Superintendent of Police- Sri J.K. Singh, Sub Inspector- Sri Mukhram Yadav (earlier Investigating Officers of the case in

¶9

question) as well as independent witnesses, namely, Mohan s/o Sri Mahesh and Mohal Lal s/o Sri Kailash Gautam prior to taking over the investigation by C.B.C.I.D. on the ground that initially, the aforesaid Investigating Officers conducted the investigation of the case in question and statements of aforesaid two independent witnesses were also recorded, but learned trial court rejected the said application vide order dated 02.02.2024 in the most mechanical manner.

¶10

In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant referred to and relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Rama Chaudhary vs. State of Bihar reported in (2009) 6 SCC 346 and Sundar Lal vs. State of U.P. and another reported in SLP (Crl.) No. 10756 of 2023 . It is also submitted that the case in question is listed for judgement on 12.02.2024 by closing the opportunity of hearing also. It is, thus, submitted that indulgence of this Court is required.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of appellant. He submits that the investigation conducted by Investigating Officers, at the initial stage, cannot be omitted by learned trial court on the basis of further investigation conducted by C.B.C.I.D.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of appeal, impugned order, F.I.R. as well as other relevant documents; it is undisputed fact that initially, investigation of the case in question was conducted by local police, thereafter, the investigation was transferred to C.B.C.I.D. in pursuance of the government order dated 09.07.2018. In such circumstances, the matter requires consideration.

¶13

Issue notice to private respondent.

¶14

List this case on 22.02.2024.

¶15

In the meantime, the trial court is directed to submit a report about the fact that whether the aforesaid Investigating Officers conducted the investigation of the case in question at the initial stage by recording the statement of independent persons, namely, Mohan s/o Sri Mahesh and Mohal Lal s/o Sri Kailash Gautam or not.

¶16

Till the next date of listing, no judgement will be pronounced by the trial court.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellant undertakes that he will inform about this order by tomorrow.

¶18

Station House Officer, Police Station- Sandana, DistrictSitapur is also directed to give information to Kamlesh Kumar s/o late Pancham Lal r/o Village- Asuwamau, Police StationSandana, District- Sitapur about the next listing of the case and will place a written report before this Court by the next date of listing.

¶19

Order Date :- 8.2.2024 Arpan

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajeev Kumar @ Munendra Dwivedi v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Kumar @ Munendra Dwivedi v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Miftahul Haque vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Juvenile X, in Case Crime No. 249/2020 Thru. Mother vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 3 Others

Ramagya and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Manjur Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and Another

C/M,Saharanpur Ayurvedic Medical Collage, Saharanpur Thru. Admin Yogesh Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. of Ayush, Lucknow and Others

C/M Dr. Abdul Ali Tibbiya College and Hospital,Lko. Thru. Director Prof. Dr.Arshad Ali and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Ayush, Lko. and 4 Others