Court No. - 17
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4412 of 2018 Applicant :- Prashant Dubey And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the order dated 17.01.2018 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Mainpuri registered as case no. 1406 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No.262 of 2016 under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506, 324 IPC P.S. Dannahar, District Mainpuri.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that in the case at hand charge-sheet was submitted before the court on 19.3.2017 as charge-sheet no.39 of 2017 but thereafter the Investigating Officer illegally added section 307 IPC in the said charge-sheet on 20.7.2017 and the Magistrate concerned has also taken cognizance thereon on 29.08.2017 which bears cutting on the date '29', in fact, the Investigating Officer did not have power to make such kind of addition in the charge-sheet subsequent to filing the charge-sheet before the court.
Learned A.G.A. on the other hand argued that it is not clear as to when the charge-sheet was submitted before the court but from the date when the CJM has taken cognizance it is clear that cognizance was taken by order on 29.8.2017 under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506, 324 IPC. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 17.1.2018 because it has been held in the said order that on the basis of evidence, offence under section 307 IPC was made out, hence cognizance was taken under section 307 IPC also.
Heard the argument of the learned counsel for the applicants and perused the record.
From a perusal of record it is evident that from the side of the accused-applicants, an application 12-B was moved with an allegation that the cognizance was taken in the matter against law. Charge-sheet was filed under section 147, 148, 149, 324, 504, 506 IPC on 28.3.2017 and that offence under section 307 IPC was not found to have been made out. Thereafter, C.O. Sri Suresh Chandra Yadav illegally gave an advice to the Investigating Officer to submit charge-sheet under section 307 IPC also and under fear the Investigating Officer has added section 307 IPC in the said charge-sheet although no offence under section 307 IPC is made out. Learned court below has not applied its judicious mind. He had no jurisdiction to take cognizance under section 307 IPC, hence the said cognizance needs to be set aside.
Learned court below after hearing A.P.O. has given finding that in the charge-sheet offence under section 307 IPC was added after finding on record sufficient evidence and hence there was no error in taking cognizance under section 307 IPC which was taken after judicious application of mind and has dismissed the said application. This Court does not find any error in the impugned order and hence the application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. deserves to be rejected and accordingly it is rejected.
However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, then the bail applications of the applicants be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid-down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the applications for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
Order Date :- 28.3.2018 AU