Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Akhilesh Kumar Singh vs State Of U P And Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|29 May, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27944 of 2017 Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dhiraj Singh,Surya Pratap Singh Parmar Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Virendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Surya Pratap Singh Parmar, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. on behalf of State.
2. Present 482 application has been filed against the order dated 10.8.2017 passed by the A.C.J.M. Court no. 6, Varanasi, under Section 216 Cr.P.C., in Criminal Case No.700 of 2013 (State Vs. Shriti Singh & another), under Sections 506 and 507 IPC, P.S. Shivpur, District Varanasi pending in the Court of A.C.J.M. Court no. 6, Varanasi.
3. At present, there was sufficient material available in the shape of the FIR as supported by the testimony of P.W. 1 (informant/applicant) to establish that there was ingredient of offence under Section 386 IPC.
4. However, it is undisputed that the court below has only declined to exercise the power bestowed on it under Section 216 Cr.P.C. at this stage, inasmuch as, the court below has clearly observed that the other evidence of witness of fact has yet to be received by it. Even otherwise, it is not a statutory right of the informant or other party participating in the trial to seek alteration of charge. It is a complete discretion vested in the trial court to alter the charges at any time before judgment is pronounced. By every nature, it is a pure discretionary power of the court to be exercised in its own wisdom motivated by sense of doing justice to the parties.
5. In view of the above, there is no error in the order dated 10.8.2017 passed by the A.C.J.M. Court no. 6, Varanasi. The present application lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
6. However, dismissal of the present application may not restrain the court below from considering alteration of charge at the appropriate stage, if that may otherwise appear necessary in the interest of justice.
Order Date :- 29.5.2019 Meenu
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Akhilesh Kumar Singh vs State Of U P And Others

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
29 May, 2019
Judges
  • Saumitra Dayal Singh
Advocates
  • Virendra Singh