Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3397 of 2021 Revisionist :- Deepa @ Deepchand And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anothers Counsel for Revisionist :- Santosh Kumar Pandey,Rajnish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
Heard, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This revision has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.11.2021 passed by Session Judge, Aligarh in Session Trial No.1119 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No.88 of 2016, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 307 and 504 I.P.C., Police Station Gonda, District Aligarh.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that on the written complaint of revisionist no.2, FIR as Case Crime No.81 of 2016, under Sections 302, 307, 313, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) (v) SC/ST Act was lodged on 24.03.2016 and in the aforesaid FIR, husband of respondent No.2 along with three others were named and during the course of treatment one Ranjhe @ Rajkumar died. He further submitted that on the basis of concocted facts, FIR No.88 of 2016, under Sections 147, 452, 307, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Gonda, District Aligarh was lodged by the respondent No.2 on 03.04.2016 with the allegation that the incident was taken place on 23.03.2016 and six persons were named. He further submitted that FIR in question was lodged after about 10 days from the date of incident. He further submitted that after investigation, charge- sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer in Case Crime No.81 of 2016 (supra) which was lodged by revisionist No.2 against husband of the respondent No.2, Laukush, Virendra Singh and Tejendra Singh on 30.05.2016.
Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that final report was filed by the Investigating officer in Case Crime No.88 of 2016 lodged by the respondent No.2, and thereafter, protest petition was filed, which was allowed by the court below and accused persons were summoned on 21.08.2017 including the dead person, namely, Ranjhe @ Rajkumar. The aforesaid summoning order was challenged before this Court in application (u/s 482 Cr.P.C.) No.7641 of 2018, which was disposed of with the observation that in case the revisionists moved discharge application, the same shall be considered and decided by the court below within 30 days, and thereafter, discharge was moved, which was rejected in the most mechanical manner. He further submitted that there was no grievous injury found on the body of the injured and FIR was lodged in-retaliation and after detailed investigation, final report was submitted, which was to be considered by the court below, therefore, indulgence of this Court is necessary.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of revisionists and submitted that summoning order was passed on the protest petition of the respondent No.2 as this fact was not before the court below at the time of passing the summoning order that accused Ranjhe @ Rajkumar was no more, and thereafter, order will not be incorrect merely on this fact. He further submitted that injured Sanjeev has received two injuries, injury No.2 is grievous one, and the court below rightly rejected the application for discharge and revisionist may appear before the court below and submit their defence, at the appropriate stage.
Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the revisionists as well as learned A.G.A. and going through the entire records, it is evident that Sanjeev received injuries and injury report is available on record, therefore, motive of the accused persons cannot be examined, at this stage. I am of the opinion that order passed by the court below is strictly in accordance with law and the same does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity and irregularity which may call for any interference by this Court.
The present revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.12.2021 Amit/-