Court No. - 48
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4848 of 2018 Petitioner :- Surendra And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Tripathi,Mandvi Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA and perused the record.
This matter under article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 04.04.2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Baghpat in Criminal Revision No.26 of 2018, U/s 397 Cr.P.C. and to set aside the impugned order dated 04.01.2018 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat in complaint case no.360 of 2016, U/s 147, 148, 307 & 302 I.P.C., P.S. Doghat, District Baghpat.
The submission made by the petitioners' counsel is that there was an order passed by the trial Court which had allowed the accused to move a discharge application through counsel before it within 2 weeks and such application was expected to be disposed off in accordance with law within two weeks thereafter. But when the application seeking discharge was moved before the court of Magistrate, the Magistrate has proceeded to reject the application wrongly and when revision against the order passed by the Magistrate was filed in the court of session, the lower revisional court has also not appreciated the facts correctly and has dismissed the revision wrongly and therefore both the orders deserves to be set-aside.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer.
On perusal of both the impugned orders reveals judicial application of mind and there is also no illegality, impropriety or incorrectness reflecting in the same. This court also does not see any element of perversity that may be pointed out. It is undisputed fact that the trial in question is triable by the court of session and the charges shall have to be framed by the court of session. It was beyond the power of the Magistrate to discharge the accused. The application seeking the discharge was apparently moved in the wrong court and the Magistrate had no option than to pass the order which it did. The lower revisional court also has gone through the record and taken a note of the same. If the magistrate did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the discharge application he had proceeded accordingly by passing the impugned order. The finding of the lower revisional court concurring with the order passed by the Magistrate also cannot be faulted with. There is no abuse of court's process reflected in either of the impugned orders. This court also does not see any breach of any constitutional provisions in the impugned orders.
The writ petition lacks merit and stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.7.2018 shiv