Reserved
Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1146 of 2019 Revisionist :- Shahzad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Ravindra Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bharat Singh
Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.
Heard Shri Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Bharat Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record of the case.
By means of this revision, the revisionist has challenged the order dated 06.2.2019 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Budaun in ST No. 259 of 2017 whereby the learned Judge has summoned the applicant to face trial under Section 307 and 302 IPC.
The brief facts of the case as set up in the FIR are that a written report was lodged by the informant Iqbal Husain at the police station Kotwali, district Budaun to the effect that Barat of son of Umar Khayyam was proceeding for Bareilly and when it was passing through the house of the informant, Saud, Daud and Shahzad started firing with the illegal weapons as a result of which his niece Gulshad, wife of Salim and two years old chap in her lap has also received gun shot injury.
On the basis of the aforesaid report, a case was registered against Saud, Daud and the revisionist Shahzad at case crime No. 144 of 2017, under Section 307 IPC. However, after the death of Gulshad, Section 302 IPC was also added. However, during the course of investigation, it was found that one Afsha, wife of Rahat Husain has also sustained injury in the incident.
However, after recording the statements of the witnesses and scrutinizing video clip of Barat, the investigating officer exonerated the revisionist and filed the charge sheet against Saud and Daud only.
During the course of trial statements of PW-1, Iqbal and PW-2, Sajid were recorded, who named the revisionist-Shahzad also as one of the accused. Thereafter an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by the informant for summoning the revisionist, which was allowed by the impugned order.
At the outset, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has made a preliminary objection that revision against the summoning order is not maintainable and only remedy available to the revisionist is to file an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C in view of a three Judge Bench decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Subramanium Sethuraman Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2004 (13) SCC 324. This submission was not opposed by the learned counsel for the revisionist.
In such circumstances, without giving any finding on merit, this revision is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.
Office is directed to return the certified copy of the impugned order after retaining the photocopy of the same on record.
Order Date :- 26.4.2019 Ishrat