Krishna Gopal Niranjan v. Aryan and others), under Sections
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:114966 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3411 of 2024 Applicant :- Aryan Patel Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Birendra Singh,Swati Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gaurang Dwivedi Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Birendra Singh, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Gaurang Dwivedi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. Court has passed following order on 05.07.2024 :- "1. Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Birendra Singh, learned counsel for applicant, fairly submits that an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed at the behest of co-accused has already been dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.05.2024, however still there are some circumstances which may be considered by this Court that after statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded , the Magistrate concerned has directed for investigation under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. vide order dated 03.12.2022. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that according to his instruction and on basis of order sheet, report thereof was never placed before Trial Court concerned and he refers the order sheet dated 21.06.2023 wherein report was awaited. 2. Sri Gaurang Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 2 submits that in the application filed by co-accused said purported inquiry report was placed by applicant therein by way of an affidavit and copy of same is submitted before this Court for perusal. 3. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that if report was not submitted before Trial Court then it should be noted in impugned order but it has not been recorded and in case a report was submitted, consideration thereof should be a part of order, however, the same is also not the case herein. 4. In aforesaid circumstances, Sri D.P.S. Chauhan, learned AGA appearing for State is directed to verify and take instruction from concerned Investigating Officer, whether investigation report was submitted before Trial Court in Complaint Case No. 4211 of 2021 (Krishna Gopal Niranjan vs. Aryan and others), under Sections 302, 201, 120B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun. 5. Put up on 19th July, 2024 as fresh alongwith record of Application under Section 482 No. 3987 of 2024." 3. Sri D.P.S. Chauhan, learned A.G.A., on instructions, submits that a police investigation report was submitted, however, at this stage, it could not be said that whether it was part of proceedings before trial Court or not. 4. It is not in dispute that challenge to impugned summoning order at the instance of co-accused Shivam Niranjan @ Bunty in Application u/s 482 No. 3987 of 2024 was rejected by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.05.2024. For reference, said order is quoted below in its entirety :- "1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 22.12.2023 passed by learned Additional Session Judge/FTC (Crime Against Women) Jalaun at Orai, in Criminal Revision No.149 of 2023, CNR No.UPJL010074862023 (Shivam Niranjan @ Bunty Vs. State of U.P.), Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun as well as the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 4211 of 2021 under Sections 302, 201, 120B of IPC. 3. It is submitted that on 29.04.2021 at about 10.30 pm the car number UP93 AY 9060 owned by Manoj Kumar met with an accident. All three injured persons sitting in the car were taken to the hospital. Deceased Somendra was one of the persons who was sitting in the car at the time of accident. All the three persons sustained injuries. The applicant was admitted in hospital on 30.04.2021 since he also sustained grievous injuries. He remained in the hospital till 21.06.2021. The postmortem report of the deceased Somendra also indicates that he died due to injuries sustained in the accident since all the injuries sustained by him over his right side. The witness produced under Section 202 Cr.P.C. are interested witness. Kuldeep is the uncle of the deceased who remained silent for a long period of one month and did not disclose that he was the eye witness of the incident to the complainant. Another witness Kamlesh is the uncle of deceased who is said to have the witness of throwing the dead body of Somendra by applicant. Other witness Sushil is the relative of complainant. He did not disclose anything about the alleged extra judicial confession made by applicant. It is also submitted that matter was extensively enquired by superior authority of police and it was concluded that it was a case of accident not of murder. 4. Per-contra, learned AGA assisted by learned counsel for the informant submitted that there are contradictions in the finding of alleged Enquiry Officers which is brought on record. The witness Kuldeep is the eye witness of the incident. Kamlesh is the witness of causing disappearance of the body of the deceased. Witness Sushil is the person before whom applicant made extra judicial confession. No case under Section 304-A of IPC was registered on the basis of the alleged accident. Therefore, any enquiry conducted by the police officers has no significance. Learned trial Court after considering the witnesses, statement of complainant has summoned the accused to face trial. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the available record, the prayer for quashing of the entire proceedings of aforesaid case, impugned order dated 22.12.2023 is refused. 6. Accordingly, application is dismissed." 5. Learned Senior Advocate has reiterated above referred submissions and added that after investigation report is submitted, process to take cognizance would be different. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that since challenge to summoning order has already been rejected in above referred application, therefore, this Court may not be taken a contrary view in present application. 7. Court considers rival submissions and has perused the records and since Coordinate Bench of this Court by a reasoned order has rejected challenge to impugned summoning order as referred above, therefore, even there may be some legal issue which was not brought into notice of coordinate Bench, still, there is no reason with this Court to take a contrary view. 8. In aforesaid circumstances, present application is liable to be rejected, hence, rejected. Order Date :- 19.7.2024 N. Sinha