Disposed

Sarvesh @ Sarvesh Kumar Azad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Nov 2024CRLR/1462/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision challenging rejection of a discharge application in a sessions trial for offences including Section 313 IPC; court found prima facie material including medical evidence justified framing charge and refused to quash.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash impugned order refused; revision disposed with observation that bail/anticipatory bail applications be decided expeditiously.

Sarvesh @ Sarvesh Kumar Azad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:79123

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1462 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Sarvesh @ Sarvesh Kumar Azad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Revisionist :- Piyush Pathak,Himadri Goswami,Kapil Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶7

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice to the opposite party no.2 is dispensed with.

¶9

3. The instant revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 21.11.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court-II, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No.2258 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No.444 of 2018, under Sections 313, 323, 354, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Gazipur, District Lucknow by which the discharge application filed by the revisionist has been rejected.

¶10

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the present revisionist is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in this case. He has also submitted that the first information report came to be lodged against the present revisionist due to some ulterior reasons. Upon conclusion of investigation, a charge sheet came to be submitted against the present revisionist without there being any evidence whatsoever against him.

¶11

5. His further submission is that the impugned order dated 21.11.2024 is patently illegal as it does not reflect the application of judicial mind by the learned trial Court while rejecting the application seeking discharge. His further submission is that the material available on record

¶12

does not warrant framing of charge against the revisionist for the offence under Sections 313, 323, 354, 504, 506 I.P.C. He has also submitted that the present revisionist has lent some amount to the victim which was not returned to him and in order to avoid repayment of the aforesaid amount advanced by the revisionist, a false case came to be lodged against him.

¶13

6. His next submission with vehemence is that the provisions contained in Section 227 Cr.P.C. in respect of discharge is sessions trial and Section 239 Cr.P.C. regarding discharge in warrant trial, are substantially similar. This fact has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Asim Shariff vs. National Investigation Agency reported in (2019) 7 SCC 148 in para-18. Therefore, having regard to this settled legal position, the learned trial court was bound to sift evidence in limited manner to ascertain as to whether any offence is made out against the revisionist or not.

¶14

7. His next submission is that the learned trial Court, while passing the impugned order, has failed to appreciate that the learned trial court was competent to sift evidence for a limited purpose of ascertaining as to whether any offence, prima facie, is made out against the revisionist or not. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

¶15

8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer by submitting that it is trite that charge can be framed on the basis of even grave suspicion. Any effort of threadbare analysis of evidence at this stage is not permissible because doing so would either affect the case of accused or of the prosecution. No Mini trial can be undertaken for the aforesaid purpose. Therefore, the instant criminal revision being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed.

¶16

9. Having heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the record, it appears that in fact, a first information report came to be lodged against the present revisionist and after conclusion of investigation, charge sheet came to be submitted

¶17

against him for the offences under Sections 313, 323, 354, 504, 506 I.P.C. on the basis of evidence collected during investigation by the Investigating Officer. After perusal of the evidence collected during investigation including the medical evidence, a copy of which is available at page 28 to the instant application wherein the ultra sound report to the effect that there was a "missed abortion", learned trial Court appears to have come to the conclusion that prima facie, the material for framing charge against the present revisionist under Sections 313, 323, 354, 504, 506 I.P.C. is available.

¶18

Having regard to the aforesaid material available on record, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order dated 21.11.2024, whereby the application for discharge was rejected, does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. The same does not appear to be an instance of abuse of process of this Court either.

¶19

10. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the impugned order dated 21.11.2014 is refused.

¶20

11. However, it is needless to mention that if the revisionist seeks anticipatory bail/bail, the learned trial Court shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antill vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others reported in MANU/SC/1024/2021 and Satender Kumar Antill vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825.

¶21

12. With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal revision is finally disposed of .

¶22

Order Date :- 28.11.2024 Mahesh

¶23

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

Sarvesh @ Sarvesh Kumar Azad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvesh @ Sarvesh Kumar Azad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jitendra Nigam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Smt. Tarannum and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Noori Vs Additional Court No. 5 Lko. District Lko. and Another

Putani @ Saurabh vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt., Lucknow and Another

Mahesh Yadav and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Mandeo Yadav and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another