Court No. - 64
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36262 of 2019 Applicant :- Phool Chand Patel And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Kesari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 1.8.2019 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Varanasi in Criminal Case No. 4576 of 2017, State versus Phool Chand and others, under Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Cantt, District Varanasi.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the relevant papers were not supplied to the applicants as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the present criminal proceedings against the applicants are bad in the eyes of law. Further submission is that initially the charges were framed against the applicants on 12.6.2003 under Sections 324/34, 504 and 506 I.P.C. but on later stage it was found by the trial Court that the earlier order framing charges was erroneous and, therefore, on 19.7.2010 charges were framed against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 323/34, 325/34, 504 and 506 I.P.C. Therefore, the application of the accused-applicants claiming retrial as per provisions of Section 204 Cr.P.C. was genuine and legal and the trial court was not justified in rejecting the same.
A perusal of the present application shows that the charge sheet against the applicants was submitted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506 I.P.C. On 12.6.2003 the then Presiding Officer framed charges against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 323/34, 504 and 506 I.P.C. Thereafter, the case proceeded and the statement of P.W.1 and P.W.2 was recorded before the trial court. On 19.7.2010 the Presiding Officer had again framed charges against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 323/34, 325/34, 504 and 506 I.P.C. as it was observed by the trial court that the earlier charges were not framed in accordance with law. A perusal of the order sheet shows that on 31.7.2010 i.e. the next date after framing the charges learned counsel for the applicants had made an endorsement in the order sheet that he does not wish to cross-examine the witnesses who had already been examined prior to the framing of the charge. Therefore, the trial court proceeded and recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Looking into the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the applicants on 31.7.2010 it is clear that the applicants themselves had waived off their rights to cross-examine the witnesses on the point of newly added Sections in charge, therefore, the provisions of Section 216(4) Cr.P.C. will not be applicable in the present case on the basis of concessions given by the applicants themselves. The applicants had failed to show that any prejudice has been caused to them due to alteration of the charges or framing of new charges. So far as the allegation with regard to supply of documents under Section 207 Cr.P,C. is concerned, the court below has given a specific finding that the applicants are raising this question at a belated stage i.e. after examination and cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. The detailed cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses was not possible without having the relevant prosecution papers which were contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. to be given to the accused-applicants.
I have gone through the impugned order dated 1.8.2019 passed by the court below and perused the record. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, hence no interference is required by this Court. There is also no abuse of the court's process reflected in the same.
The application is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.9.2019 CPP/-