Court No. - 66
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29161 of 2014 Applicant :- Gyan Prakash Agarwal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- V. Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Abhishek Mishra,J.P.
Pandey,J.P.Pandey,K.N.Mishra and Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24730 of 2019 Applicant :- Gyan Prakash Agarwal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Srivastava,Anil Kumar Srivastava (Sr. Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bhaskar Bhadra Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Both applications u/s 482 Cr.P.C. are arising out of same case crime number thus, and the same are being disposed of by a common order.
Heard Sri Anil Srivastava, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Vikas Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Devendra Vikram holding brief of Sri Bhaskar Bhadra, counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A.
The application u/s 482 No. 29161 of 2014 has been filed by the applicant challenging the impugned charge-sheet dated 4.2.2014 arising out of Case Crime no. 754 of 2013, u/s 302, 120-B/34 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Ghaziabad and also all consequential proceeding arising thereof. So far as the Application u/s 482 No. 24730 of 2019 is concerned, the applicant has challenged the impugned order dated 25.4.2019 as well as the order dated 19.6.2019 passed by Special Judge, E.C. Act, Ghaziabad whereby the discharge application moved by the applicant has been rejected and framed charges against the applicant u/s 302/34, 120-B I.P.C.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that infact the applicant has been falsely implicated by the first informant, who was the actual culprit; infact the I.O. colluded with real assailant and he botched up entire investigation and did not even record the statement of wife of the deceased, who had approached higher authority and moved several applications that infact named accused are not the real culprits and main accused is the first informant himself, however, despite running from pillar to post, she also approached the court for appropriate direction to higher authority for fair and free investigation, the same was not done. In this behalf on her application, inquiry was conducted by Additional S.P. (Crime), Gautam Budh Nagar, who also supported the stand of the wife of deceased, however, the same was not made part of the case diary and in one sided manner the applicant has been chargesheeted by the police, therefore, the impugned chargesheet and impugned order may be set aside.
Per contra learned A.G.A. and counsel for the informant vehemently argued that at this stage taking cognizance and framing of charge, trial court has only to examine the evidence collected during investigation and merely because the wife of the deceased was not examined during investigation, who infact was not even an eye witness, can not tarnish the credibility of the witnesses at this stage. They further submitted that wife of the deceased may be examined by the applicant in his defence. The court below has not committed any illegality in taking cognizance and rejecting the discharge application as well as framing of charge against the applicant, thus, the applications are liable to be dismissed.
After carefully examining the allegation made in the F.I.R. and the evidence collected during investigation, at this stage prima facie there is evidence to make out offence u/s 302 I.P.C. against the applicant. I do not find any force in the applications, the same are hereby dismissed.
Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has further pointed out that since the trial (S.T. No. 811 of 2014) is pending for the last about five years, the court below may be directed to decide the same within stipulated period.
In view of the aforesaid, the trial court is directed to expedite and conclude the aforesaid trial within a period of nine months form the date of production of certified copy of the order.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019 Dhirendra/