Court No. - 15
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43006 of 2018 Applicant :- Karan Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nanhe Lal Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order dated 23.10.2018 passed by Sessions Judge in S.T. No. 69 of 2013 (State vs. Karan Yadav) whereby learned trial court held that there is sufficient ground to frame charge under Sections 364 and 302 I.P.C. against applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that this case First Information Report was lodged for missing of Khemchand. The doctor, who had conducted the post mortem report of the deceased, has stated before the Court that anti-mortem injury might have been caused due to collusion with the train. The driver of the train stated before the Investigating Officer that deceased had died due to collusion with train. Learned trial court without considering all these facts has passed the impugned order only on the basis of statement of PW1 Smt. Sukhwati and PW2 Kalu Ram. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by learned trial court is without applying its mind.
Learned A.G.A. contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court.
As per provision of Section 216 Cr.P.C., charge may be altered at any time. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2018 SCC Online SC 210 held as follows :
".............Thus, we declare the law to be that order framing charge is not purely an interlocutory order nor a final order. Jurisdiction of the High Court is not barred irrespective of the label of a petition, be it under Sections 397 or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution. However, the said jurisdiction is to be exercised consistent with the legislative policy to ensure expeditious disposal of a trial without the same being in any manner hampered. Thus considered, the challenge to an order of charge should be entertained in a rarest of rare case only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to re-appreciate the matter."
From perusal of record, it is evident that there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by trial court.
Accordingly, application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. Order Date :- 30.11.2018 VG..