Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 22898 of 2018 Applicant :- Pandhari Lal Yadav And 3 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Saroj Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Certified copy of the order sheet of the learned session court has been produced in the Court by learned counsel for the applicants today, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the order dated 7.4.2018 passed by Sessions Judge, Bhadohi in S.T. No. 296 of 2017 (State Vs. Pandhari Lal Yadav and others) arising out of case crime no. 132 of 2017, under Sections 147, 308, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Bhadohi, District Bhadohi pending before the Sessions Judge, Bhadohi.
It has been submitted that besides the FIR allegations, which are bald in sweeping and during the course of investigation, neither any medical evidence nor any ocular evidence has emerged, as may require the conduct of trial against the applicants specifically for the offence alleged under Section 308 IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that looking into the nature of injuries as have been shown in the medical report and the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the applicants should have been discharged for the offence under Section 308 Cr.P.C. He, however, further submits that in fact the applicants should have been completely discharged. Referring to the impugned order dated 7.4.2018, the applicants' discharge application had been rejected and charge has been framed against them. It is submitted that the learned court below had completely failed to examine that there does not exist any material to proceed against the applicants under Section 308 Cr.P.C. To that extent, it has been submitted that the order passed by the learned court below suffer from non application of mind. It is then submitted that in any case, learned court below has erred in framing the lump sum charge against all the accused for the offence alleged without examining the nature of allegation and material available on record viz-a-viz each of the accused with reference to offence alleged. Lastly, it has been submitted that wholly vague and nebulous charge has been framed against the applicants.
Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that all defence set up by the applicants may be examined during trial.
Having considered the arguments so advanced at present, it does appear that learned court below has erred in rejecting the discharge application of the applicants specially in view of the fact that upon such rejection learned court below appears to have framed a vague, nebulous and omnibus charge against all the accused. Such exercise cannot be approved even at this stage.
Without entering into the merits of the grounds for discharge raised by learned counsel for the applicants, the order dated 7.4.2018 cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned court below to reconsider and readjudicate the application for discharge filed by the applicants strictly in accordance with law based on the material that is available on the prosecution file with reference to the allegation of commission of offence by each of the applicants.
Needless to say that once the discharge application is decided thereafter, learned court below may proceed to frame specific charges as may appears to arise against individual accused.
The application stands disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 31.7.2018 AK Pandey