Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16889 of 2019 Applicant :- Vardani Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Bans Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. in opposition and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Code') has been filed against the judgement and order dated 13.03.219 passed by 6th Additional Session Judge, Banda in Criminal Revision No.108/18 (Vardani Vs. Smt. Manju Bala) dismissing the revision against order dated 22.06.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/ F.T.C., Banda in Case No.402/17, (Smt. Manju Bala Vs. Vardani). By the order dated 22.06.2018 charge under Section 494 I.P.C. has been framed against applicant/ accused Vardani.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that opposite party no.2 (Smt. Manju Bala) has lodged F.I.R. against applicant and initiated several proceedings against him. Opposite party no.2 has filed this complaint maliciously with false allegation only to harass the applicant.
Learned A.G.A., appearing for the State contended that there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the courts below.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Central Burueau of Investigation reported in 2018 SCC OnLine SC 310 has observed as follows:-
"..............38. Thus, we declare the law to be that order framing charge is not purely an interlocutory order nor a final order. Jurisdiction of the High Court is not barred irrespective of the label of a petition, be it under under Sections 397 or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution. However, the said jurisdiction is to be exercised consistent with the legislative policy to ensure expeditious disposal of a trial without the same being in any manner hampered. Thus considered, the challenge to an order of charge should be entertained in a rarest of rare case only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to re-appreciate the matter."
Accordingly, there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the courts below. Therefore, I find no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the courts below.
In result, the instant application, stands rejected. Order Date :- 30.4.2019 Radhika