Court No. - 66
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28673 of 2019 Applicant :- Bhudev Singh Alias Bhoora Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Bharat Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri Bharat Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of S.T. No.108 of 2019 (State vs. Jitendra alias Topi and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 14 of 2019 CNR No.- UPJBO1002196-2019, under Section 302 r/w Section 34 I.P.C., P.S. Bachhrayun, District- Amroha, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Amroha as well as the impugned order of framing the charges dated 4.6.2019.
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is not named in the first information report and his name surfaced during investigation and he was ultimately charge-sheeted on which cognizance was taken. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of sessions. Learned counsel has pointed out that the present case relates to the year 2019 and the sessions trial is also of the same year. The first date fixed for framing of charges was 4.6.2019 against the applicant and other co-accused who are facing trial on that date an application was moved for adjourning the case on the ground that the applicant's counsel was out of station on account of some personal work and an opportunity for arguing on framing of charges may be afforded. The certified copy of the adjournment application moved on behalf of the applicant has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit. It is stated that learned Judge without affording any opportunity to the applicant's counsel to argue on framing of charges which is legal and constitutional right of an accused to argue under Section 227 Cr.P.C., after hearing the counsel for other co- accused framed the charges without even taking a note of the adjournment application moved on behalf of the applicant. Learned counsel has argued that if an opportunity is not given to the applicant to argue on framing of charges he would be deprived of placing the evidence collected during investigation to point out that, prima facie, the charges cannot be framed against him. He further submits that it is not a case that several dates have been taken by the applicant and other co-accused and they are delaying the trial and, therefore, the impugned order is manifestly illegal and has deprived a valuable right of arguing as provided under Section 227 Cr.P.C. The applicant is already languishing in jail.
I have gone through the impugned order in which, though, the learned Judge has recorded that the counsels have been heard but there is no reference of the adjournment application moved on behalf of the applicant. I find sufficient force in the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant as the sessions trial is of the year 2019 and it cannot be said that there was any effort by the applicant to delay the case but the adjournment was sought on the ground of some personal problem of the lawyer who was out of station on that date.
In the light of aforesaid, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the impugned order dated 4.6.2019 is hereby set-aside.
The learned trial Judge is directed to fix an early date after giving due opportunity to defence and the prosecution pass an appropriate order in the light of the provisions of Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, allowed.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019 Vikas