Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3496 of 2019 Applicant :- Kalicharan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Sunder Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
By means of this application U/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has challenged the order dated 30.11.2018, whereby, objection of the applicant for amendment of the charge has come to be rejected. Earlier the applicant was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. which order was challenged before this Court on merits vide Application U/s 482 No. 6706 of 2018 in which the Court refused to quash the proceedings as well as the summoning order vide order dated 27.02.2018. The relevant portion of the order dated 27.02.2018 is reproduced hereunder:
"The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case based on the charge-sheet is refused.
However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days and no more from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
It is made clear that the applicant will not be granted any further time by this Court for surrendering before the Court below as directed above.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of."
It appears that thereafter, the applicant surrendered before the court below pursuant to order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and applied for bail. The bail has been granted and the charges have been framed against the applicant vide order dated 25.05.2018. The grounds seeking amendment of the charge is that the applicant was not named in the statement of complainant and that he had been falsely implicated and his summoning was erroneous under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and all that has been stated is only with intention to mislead the Court.
In the opinion of the Court, this argument is no more open for the applicant to advance after his application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been rejected against the summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and the charges have been framed pursuant thereto.
This Court does not find any merit in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that his name has not been taken in the statement of the complainant and that he has been summoned under some misconception.
The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 29.1.2019 IrfanUddin