Court No. - 67
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3283 of 2019 Applicant :- Aishwarya Chaudhary @ Mausam Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Kumar,Niraj Kumar Shukla,Rajrshi Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Sri Dileep Kumar, learned counsel assisted by Sri Bhuvnesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A.
By means of the present 482 Cr.P.C. application, the prayer sought by the applicant is to quash the impugned order dated 10.01.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1/Special Judge, Bijnor in S.T. No.121 of 2016(State Vs. Sansar and others) arising out of case crime no.1036 of 2016 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 302, 336, 436, 504 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station-Kotwali City, District-Bijnor and direct the court below to separate the file of the applicant from other co-accused persons in the present offence.
The contention advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is not named in the FIR. During the investigation, police after collecting the material, submitted his report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. in two parts. The First charge sheet was submitted on 15.12.2016 in which the name of the applicant does not find place. However, in the second charge sheet dated 24.12.2016, the applicant was named in the charge sheet. Keeping in view, that certain accused persons were absconding, the investigation was in progress with regard to them and a supplementary case diary was prepared in which subsequent Investigating Officer has specifically dropped the name of the applicant in his ultimate report.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that when armed with the supplementary case diary and its conclusion, the applicant has preferred an application to drop the criminal prosecution against him and separate his case then the impugned order be passed.
It is next contended that in the light of supplementary case diary and the conclusion drawn by the subsequent Investigating Officer, no case is made out against the applicant and in the fitness of circumstances, the prosecution against the applicant should be dropped. It is further submitted that complainant- Mohd. Furkan has filed an application on 03.10.2017 in which the complainant in no uncertain terms accused the erstwhile Investigating Officer of the case who deliberately dropped the names of actual offenders and inserted the names of those persons who never ever engaged in commission of the above crime.
The complainant has further submitted in his application dated 03.10.2017(Annexure-13) that he has got no grievance in the event the name of the applicant is dropped among array of accused persons.
Under the circumstances, the Court concerned would look into the matter in the light of material collected by the subsequent Investigating Officer while preparing supplementary case diary coupled with the informant's application dated 03.10.2017 in this connection and would pass a fresh well reasoned order within a period of six weeks in consonance with legal provision.
With this observation, impugned order dated 10.01.2019 stands quashed with the direction give above.
Order Date :- 29.1.2019 Sumit S