Court No. - 86
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 911 of 2020 Revisionist :- Pushpendra And 4 Ors. Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ruchita Jain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Umesh Chandra Prajapati
Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Vinod Kant, Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Abhai Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for State-opposite party no.1 as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. appearing for State and perused the record.
This criminal revision under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash impugned order dated 18.01.2020 passed by Sessions Judge, Jhansi whereby discharge application dated 03.01.2020 moved by the revisionists has been rejected as well as entire proceeding of Session Trial No.259 of 2019 (CNR No.UPJS01007766-2019 (State Versus Chandra Shekhar and others) arising out of Case Crime No.124 of 2019 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 325 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Gursarain, District Jhansi.
Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the revisionists have moved discharge application on 03.01.2020 on the ground that all the injuries on the person of the victims are simple in nature; there is delay in lodging F.I.R.; from contents of F.I.R. the element of Section 307 I.P.C. does not attract in the present set of facts; the F.I.R. speaks that firearm was used in the incident but there is no firearm injury on the body of the injured. He has further argued that learned trial court has wrongly rejected the discharge application filed by the applicant and framed the charges in a most illegal and arbitrary manner and not sustainable in law and therefore, the same are liable to be quashed by this Court.
Sri Vinod Kant, Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Abhai Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for State-opposite party no.1 has made academic arguments that the submissions made by the revisionists' counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the complaint, and also the material available on record make out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the complaint or the summoning order or the proceedings against the applicant arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.
There is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order.No interference is required by this Court.
However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the competent Court below is to act, in accordance with law.
With the above observation, this application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 22.9.2021/MN/-