Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1638 of 2018 Applicant :- Umar Ali @ Munna Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mr M J Akhtar,V.M. Zaidi Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri M.J. Akhtar, counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C., application has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.10.2017 passed by learned Additional Session Judge/F.T.C. Meerut in S.T. No. 118 of 2017 (State vs. Zahid and others) u/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326, 307, 452, 506, 395, 440 IPC, P.S. Kharkhauda, District Meerut.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that though there was ample evidence / material on record that prima facie offence u/s 307, 379, 452 IPC are disclosed from the material collected during investigation, however, I.O. only submitted chargesheet against the accused- opposite party no. 2 u/s 147, 148, 323, 324 IPC. It is next contended that the learned Judge without proper application of mind and in a routine manner has taken cognizance of the offences mentioned in the chargesheet and has not considered the evidence collected during investigation on record that prima facie aforesaid offences u/s 307, 379, 452 IPC are made out. It is further submitted that by the same order trial court has refused to discharge the accused u/s 227 Cr.P.C. meaning thereby that the trial Judge was convinced that prima facie offence was made out against the accused. Under these circumstances he was under a bounden duty to have looked into the material collected during investigation and the nature of injury sustained from the side of the prosecution by which prima facie offence u/s 307 IPC and other sections were made out.
I have carefully perused the impugned order. In my opinion at this stage it cannot be said that the trial Judge committed any illegality or manifest error of law. However, it is always open for the applicant to move an application for alteration of charge against the accused in the light of the evidence recorded during trial which shall be decided by the trial court in accordance with law.
At this stage I do not find it to be a fit case for any interference in the impugned order whereby the application for discharge of the accused and alteration of charge as prayed by the applicant has been rejected.
With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 23.2.2018 Dhirendra/