Court No. - 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20002 of 2020 Applicant :- Desh Raj And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Suresh Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A and perused the record.
By means of this application, the applicants have challenged the order dated 19.11.2020 passed by trial court in S.T. Nos. 301/2013 307/2013 and 348/2013, State Vs. Sunil by which S.T. No. 348/2013 has been separated from S.T. No. 301/2013 and 307/2013 pending against accused nos. 1 to 6.
Perusal of order shows that in S.T. No. 348/2013 State Vs. Sunil, charges were inadvertently not framed against him and the said session trial was connected with other session trial in which the statements of all the prosecution witnesses has been recorded and date has been fixed for recording the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., however, at this stage, it was disclosed that in S.T. No. 348/2013, charges have inadvertently not been framed against accused Sunil. There is direction of this Court to expedite the aforesaid trial and in view of the said circumstances, the said session trial no. 348/2013 has been separated from S.T. No. 301/2013 and 307/2013.
It is further evident from the impugned order dated 19.11.2020 that trial of the aforesaid cases has already been expedited by this Court.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that by separating S.T. No. 348/2013 from the other session trial great prejudiced would be caused to him as such the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the impugned order passed by the trial court is just and proper and legal in the circumstances of the case. The trial have already been expedited by this Court and in the facts and circumstances of the case charges will have to be framed against the accused Sunil and thereafter trial against him shall proceed further. The trial of the other connected cases have reached to the stage of recording the statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. which infact has already been recorded on 20.11.2020 as such the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality.
Having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, in my opinion there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court in the facts and circumstances of the case. No serious prejudice would be caused to the other applicants in proceeding with the trial which has reached to the stage of recording of statements of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C.
The present application filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.1.2021 R