Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43034 of 2018 Applicant :- Ankit Tripathi And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pawankumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A., for the State. Perused the record.
The present 482 Cr.P.C., application has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 10.10.2018 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Basti in S.T. No. 225 of 2017 (State Vs. Narayan Dutt Tripathi and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 783 of 2015, under Sections- 147, 323, 504, 506, 325, 308 I.P.C., Police Station- Sonha, District- Basti whereby application of the accused/applicants to discharge under Section 308 IPC was rejected.
Learned counsel for the applicants contended that in Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 29106 of 2018 (Ankit Tripathi and 5 others Vs. State of U.P. and anr.), this Court has observed that offence under Section 308 IPC is not made out against the applicants. He further contended that injuries of the injured are simple in nature. Learned Trial Court has passed the impugned order without appreciating the material available on record, which is not sustainable.
Learned A.G.A., appearing for the State contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.
In Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 29106 of 2018 (Ankit Tripathi and 5 others Vs. State of U.P. and anr.), this Court has not recorded finding that offence under Section 308 IPC is not made out against the applicants.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Burueau of Investigation reported in 2018 SCC OnLine SC 310 has observed as follows:-
"..............38. Thus, we declare the law to be that order framing charge is not purely an interlocutory order nor a final order. Jurisdiction of the High Court is not barred irrespective of the label of a petition, be it under under Sections 397 or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution. However, the said jurisdiction is to be exercised consistent with the legislative policy to ensure expeditious disposal of a trial without the same being in any manner hampered. Thus considered, the challenge to an order of charge should be entertained in a rarest of rare case only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to re-appreciate the matter."
Accordingly, there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. Moreover, Trial is pending and on the basis of evidence adduced before the court, if Trial Court comes to the conclusion that offence punishable under Section 308 IPC is not made out against the accused/applicants, then accused/applicants shall be acquitted. Therefore, I find no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.
In result, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.11.2018 Jaswant