Chandra Pratap Singh v. Navneet Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:190970 Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2132 of 2024 Revisionist :- Navneet Singh And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Akhilesh Kumar Singh,Chandra Kumar Rai,Sheshadri Trivedi,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satya Prakash Singh Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. 1. Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sheshadri Trivedi, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Satya Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the material placed on record. 2. Instant criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 22.3.2024, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh, in Misc. Case No.332 of 2023 (Chandra
Legal Reasoning
Pratap Singh vs. Navneet Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.472 of 2022, under Sections 147, 307, 504, 506 IPC, POlice Station Maharajganj, District Azamgarh, whereby the Magistrate has rejected the final report dated 11.6.2023 and summoned the revisionists to face trial. 4. The brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged at the instance of opposite party No.2 Chandra Pratap Singh @ Chandan Singh on the basis of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. bearing dated 8.8.2022, filed before CJM, Azamgarh. The informant therein named the revisionists Navneet Singh and four others as well as one unknown person as accused. According to the FIR version, informant is a portfolio holder of Bhartiya Janta Party in Mandal Maharajganj, District Azamgarh. On 2.7.2022, at around 5:15 PM, when he was moving alongwith Rajendra Yadav driving his motorcycle, suddenly his co-villager Sudhir Singh met him on turn of Sardaha Bazar. A Mahindra SUV 300, black color, was parked nearby Navneet Singh. In the meanwhile, accused persons stepped down from the car and without telling anything, started abusing the informant and attacked him. When the informant tried to run away to save him, Anil Singh exhorted Navneet Singh to open fire on him and Navneet Singh opened a fire on him by his licensed revolver. The informant and his companion saved themselves by hiding behind a wall. Some acquaintances of the informant started pelting bricks and stones at miscreants in which their vehicle got damaged and they suffered some injuries. The report was lodged under Sections 147, 323, 307, 427 IPC. The Investigating Officer submitting a final report after concluding the investigation with finding that with regard to same date, time and place of occurrence, an FIR was lodged by Navneet Singh against informant Chandra Pratap Singh and his companions on 2.7.2022, vide Case Crime No.256 of 2022, under Sections 147, 323, 307, 427 IPC and present FIR has been lodged by the informant by moving an application under Section 156(3) CrP.C. on the basis of evidence collected during investigation. No evidence was found in support of the offence alleged in the FIR. In absence of cogent evidence against accused persons, the investigation is concluded with final report.
Legal Reasoning
5. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the informant Chandra Pratap Singh had filed a protest petition before the learned CJM feeling aggrieved by the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer in favour of the revisionists after concluding investigation in Case Crime No.472 of 2022, in which revisionists are implicated as accused. Learned Magistrate without going through the reasons assigned by the Investigating Officer while submitted the final report in favour of the revisionists, rejected the final report placing reliance on statement of informant and Rajendra Yadav, who are themselves accused in earlier FIR lodged at the instance of revisionist Navneet Singh and issued process against the revisionists after taking cognizance against them and proceeded the case as a case instituted on police report. He further submitted that on facts also, this is a counter blast case lodged by the accused side in Case Crime No.256 of 2022, under Sections 147, 323, 307, 427 IPC, which was promptly lodged on the date of incident itself and in that case, revisionist Navneet Singh is injured. Present FIR has been lodged at the instance of respondent No.2 by concocting false story to create a defence of the FIR lodged at the instance of the revisionist. He also submitted that this is a no injury case. This is admitted position that nobody had suffered any injury in the incident alleged in present FIR. He further submitted that even the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the opposite party No.2 before the Magistrate, after more than one month of the incident with a view to crate a cross-case of the earlier FIR. He next submitted that learned CJM has committed illegality while rejecting the final report on the one hand and summoning the named accused persons in FIR on the basis of material collected during investigation, once a final report has been rejected, the material collected during investigation could not be taken into consideration and while taking cognizance on the bais of material collected during investigation and issuing process against accused. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionists placed reliance on an order of this Court passed in Application U/S Cr.P.C. 482 No.8563 of 2023 (Smt. Bhuri vs. State of UP and Another), decided on 15.3.2023, wherein this Court has held in paragraph No.5 as under:- "5. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that once the Magistrate has rejected the police report (final report) then he could not have taken cognizance upon aforesaid Police report. The proper course of action open to the Magistrate was to disapprove (Aswikar) the police report and proceed with the matter as a State case by exercising jurisdiction under Section 190(1) (b) Cr.P.C. This having not been done, the Impugned order is illegal and perverse. Consequently the same is liable to be quashed by this Court." 7. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for opposite party No.2 submitted that it is wrong to say that this is a counter blast case of the FIR lodged at the instance of revisionist Navneet Singh under Sections 147, 323, 307, 427 IPC, bearing date 2.7.2022 with regard to the incident dated 2.7.2022, timing 17:00 hours. In fact, present case is a cross-case of earlier FIR lodged at the instance of Navneet Singh and in both cases, there is allegation that firing was opened by accused side. Therefore, on facts of the case, it will be established in evidence recorded during trial of both cases that who is the author of the firing. He next submitted that even in earlier case lodged at the instance of revisionist side, none has received firearm injuries. On bare perusal of Section 307 IPC makes it crystal clear that even in case of no injury, offence under Section 307 IPC can be made out. It is intention of the offender which is deciding factor, not outcome of the overt act committed by him. He further submitted that due to final report by police in favour of the revisionist the defence had not seriously jeopardized as the Investigating Officer has concluded in final report that no evidence was found in support of the allegations made in FIR. He also submitted that even a case where the magistrate rejects the final report submitted by police in favour of the accused persons, learned magistrate can take cognizance of the offence on the basis of material collected during investigation and proceeds with the case as police case. There is no embargo on magistrate on that count that in case he rejects the final report, he cannot take cognizance on the basis of material collected during investigation. The law is well settled that the magistrate is not bound by the opinion of the Investigating Officer and he can look into the material collected during investigation to form an opinion with regard to taking cognizance. In present case as the cognizance has been taken on the basis of material collected during investigation and not by any extraneous evidence adduced by the opposite party No.2 in support of his protest petition, there was not illegality on the part of the magistrate to proceed with the case as a case instituted on police report. He lastly submitted that in fact final report was submitted by police in favour of the revisionists in present case with malafide as father of the revisionist Anil Singh is posted as Police Inspector and this fact has been narrated by the magistrate in impugned order. There is no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned order and the revision deserves to be dismissed. 8. In view of the discussion made above, the Court below, while passing the order impugned, has thus committed a jurisdiction error. Furthermore, Court below has exercises it's jurisdiction with material irregularity as noted herein above, which has vitiated the order impugned warranting interference by this Court. 9. As a result, present criminal revision succeeds and is liable to be allowed. 10. It is, accordingly, allowed. 11. The impugned order dated 22.3.2024, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh, in Misc. Case No.332 of 2023 (Chandra Pratap Singh vs. Navneet Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.472 of 2022, under Sections 147, 307, 504, 506 IPC, POlice Station Maharajganj, District Azamgarh, is, hereby, set aside insofar as it relates to revisionist. 12. The matter shall stand remitted to Court below, who shall pass a fresh order after taking into consideration the observations made herein above. The necessary exercise shall be undertaken by Court below within a period of 2 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 13. It is pertinent to clarify here that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case of the parties. Order Date :- 5.12.2024 Kamarjahan