Court No. - 44
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4165 of 2017 Petitioner :- Chandrapal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Atul Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Atul Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 28th September, 2013 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.9, Aligarh in Complaint Case No. 2854 of 2011 (Yamin vs. Chandrapal Singh), under Sections 420, 406 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Dehali Gate, District Aligarh, whereby the discharge application filed by the petitioner in terms of Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
Petitioner has also challenged the order dated 7th April, 2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Aligarh in Criminal Revision No. 817 of 2013 (Chandrapal Singh vs. State of U.P. & Another), whereby the aforesaid criminal revision filed by the petitioner in challenge to the order dated 28th September, 2013 has been dismissed.
From the perusal of the order dated 23rd September, 2013 passed by the concerned Magistrate rejecting the discharge application filed by the petitioner, it is apparent that the discharge application filed by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the charge alleged against the petitioner cannot be said to be groundless and there is sufficient evidence on record to prosecute the petitioner. This finding recorded by the concerned Magistrate has been affirmed by the revisional court. The revisional court has recorded a further finding that the discharge application was filed by the petitioner without personally surrendering before the concerned Magistrate, . In short the discharge application was not maintainable without the accused person having surrendered before the concerned Magistrate. The revisional court further considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the jurisdictional facts and thereafter arrived at a conclusion that the view taken by the concerned Magistrate in rejecting the discharge application filed by the petitioner cannot be said to be illegal or perverse.
Learned counsel for the petitioner could not substantiate before this Court that the impugned orders passed by both the courts below are illegal, perverse or erroneous.
In view of the above, no illegality can be said to have been committed by both the courts below in rejecting the discharge application filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the prayer made by the petitioner for quashing the impugned orders is refused.
However, it is provided that in case the petitioner appears before the court below within a period of one month from today, then his bail application shall be considered by the court below in the light of the judgement of this court in the case of Brahm Singh and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Others, reported in 2016 (7) ADJ 151.
With the aforesaid directions, the present petition stands finally disposed of.
(Rajeev Misra, J.) Order Date :- 14.9.2018 Sushil/-