Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties as well as perused the record.
This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the petitioners for quashing the proceeding of Case No. 5697 of 2009 (State Vs Atul Singh and others), pertaining to case Crime No. 591 of 2008, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 427, 308, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Kaiserganj, District Bahraich and also to quash the non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioners.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Investigating Officer did not record the statement of accused and he had not given any opportunity to the accused to explain about the case lodged against them. The Investigating Officer in collusion with the opposite parties filed charge sheet which is bad in the eye of law.
Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that accused-petitioners are said to be 12 in numbers while the injured had sustained single injury. The medical examination report shows that no fracture was found to the injured. On the basis of medical evidence no offence under Section 308 I.P.C is made out. The charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer as against the accused-petitioners is, therefore, liable to be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the petition.
Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A.
The Investigating Officer after investigation of the case has found evidence in support of offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 427, 308, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act against the petitioners. Consequently, he submitted charge sheet against them which is not liable to be quashed.
So far as the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that on the basis of medical evidence no offence under Section 308 I.P.C. is made out is concerned, the accused petitioners can raise this fact before the trial court at the time of framing of charges. The petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
However, it is provided that if the accused petitioners appear before the trial court within one month from today and move bail application, the same will be considered and decided by the trial court keeping in view the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case reported in 2004 (57) ALR 390 : Smt. Amrawati Vs. State of U.P.
It is also provided that if the accused petitioners move application for their discharge the same will be disposed of by the trial court by passing a speaking and reasoned order.
Till then, no coercive steps will be taken by the trial court to procure the attendance of the petitioners.
24.06.2010 Renu/-