High Court

Heard Mr. Rashtrapati Khare, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State. Perused the record. Applicant- Kupen Chandrao Boro, who is a charge sheeted accused and facing trial before Court below has approached this Court by means of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer: " It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and Quash the Against Order dated 18.07.2024 passed by Additional District Judge Court No.14 Bareilly of framing the Charges and also stay the proceeding in Session Trial No: 266 of 2024, (State VS T.T.E Kupen Boro) Case Crime No. 108 OF 2022, u/s 302 I.P.C, P.S G.R.P. Station, District Bareilly, otherwise the applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. And/or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case." Present application came up for admission on 6.3.2025 and this Court passed the following order:

1. Heard Mr. Rashtrapati Khare, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State/opposite party no.1.

2. Perused the record.

3. Applicant Kupen Chandra Boro, who is a charge-sheeted accused, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer: "It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and Quash the Against Order dated 18.07.2024 passed by Additional District Judge Court No.14 Bareilly of framing the Charges and also stay the proceeding in Session Trial No: 266 of 2024, (State VS T.T.E Kupen Boro) Case Crime No. 108 OF 2022, u/s 30 I.P.C, P.S G.R.P. Station, District Bareilly, otherwise the applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."

4. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection by contending that charges have already been framed against the applicant by court below in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 228 Cr.P.C.. In view of above, remedy lies to the applicant to appear before the court below and contest the trial. Since the charges have already been framed against accused applicant by court below, therefore, court below is now bound to answer the same on one way or to other. Referring to the Three Judges' Bench Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Tarun Jit Tejpal Vs. State of Goa & Another reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1053, the learned A.G.A. further submits that as per the material record to sustain the prosecution of the applicant can be sustained, therefore, no interference is required by this Court with the order impugned in present application.

5. When confronted with the above, the learned counsel for applicant invited the attention of Court to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Satish Mehra Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Another reported in (2012) 13 SCC 614, wherein the Court has held that the veracity of proceeding can also be examined after the charges have been framed against the accused as the matter stands crystalized with the framing of charge order. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant contends that the preliminary objection raised by the learned A.G.A. is liable to be rejected.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State/opposite party no.1 and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satish Mehra (Supra), the preliminary objection raised by the learned A.G.A. for State/opposite party no.1 is liable to be rejected. It is accordingly rejected.

7. Learned counsel for applicant then submits that in view of the document occurring at page no. 57 of the paper book, the impugned charge-sheet cannot be sustained inasmuch as no covert or over act is attributable to the applicant in commission of the crime in question.

8. Despite repeated time having been granted to the learned A.G.A. for State/opposite party no.1 to obtain the case diary, the Investigating Officer has yet not sent the same to the learned A.G.A.

9. In view of the above, let the matter re-appear as fresh on 2nd April, 2025.

10. The Superintendent of Police, Railway, Bareilly Region, Bareilly is directed to ensure that the copy of the case diary is sent to the learned A.G.A. for State/opposite party no.1 on or before 1st April, 2025, failing which he shall remain present before this Court on the next date fixed. In compliance of above order, the learned A.G.A. has obtained case diary of concerned case crime number. With reference to Case Diary Parcha No. 22, the learned A.G.A. contends that as per CCTV footage, the complicity of applicant in the crime in question is established. As such, no interference is called for by this Court. In view of above, no inference regarding innocence of applicant can be drawn as per Forensic Science Laboratary Report, copy of which is on record as Annexure--5 to the affidavit. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. thus submits that no illegality can be attached to framing of charge order, passed by Court below. Referring to the judgement of Supreme Court in Tarun Jit Tejpal Vs. State of Goa, (2020) 14 SCC 556, the learned A.G.A. submits that prosecution of an accused can be maintained even in the case of grave suspicion. As such, no interference is warranted by this Court in present application. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the preliminary objection raised by learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application is clearly borne out from the record and further the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant, with reference to the record at this stage. As such no good ground exists to entertain the present application. In view of above, this application fails and is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 2.4.2025 Arshad

Heard Mr. Rashtrapati Khare, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State. Perused the record. Applicant- Kupen Chandrao Boro, who is a charge sheeted accused and facing trial before Court below has approached this Court by means of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer: " It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and Quash the Against Order dated 18.07.2024 passed by Additional District Judge Court No.14 Bareilly of framing the Charges and also stay the proceeding in Session Trial No: 266 of 2024, (State VS T.T.E Kupen Boro) Case Crime No. 108 OF 2022, u/s 302 I.P.C, P.S G.R.P. Station, District Bareilly, otherwise the applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. And/or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case." Present application came up for admission on 6.3.2025 and this Court passed the following order:

1. Heard Mr. Rashtrapati Khare, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State/opposite party no.1.

2. Perused the record.

3. Applicant Kupen Chandra Boro, who is a charge-sheeted accused, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer: "It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and Quash the Against Order dated 18.07.2024 passed by Additional District Judge Court No.14 Bareilly of framing the Charges and also stay the proceeding in Session Trial No: 266 of 2024, (State VS T.T.E Kupen Boro) Case Crime No. 108 OF 2022, u/s 30 I.P.C, P.S G.R.P. Station, District Bareilly, otherwise the applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."

4. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection by contending that charges have already been framed against the applicant by court below in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 228 Cr.P.C.. In view of above, remedy lies to the applicant to appear before the court below and contest the trial. Since the charges have already been framed against accused applicant by court below, therefore, court below is now bound to answer the same on one way or to other. Referring to the Three Judges' Bench Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Tarun Jit Tejpal Vs. State of Goa & Another reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1053, the learned A.G.A. further submits that as per the material record to sustain the prosecution of the applicant can be sustained, therefore, no interference is required by this Court with the order impugned in present application.

5. When confronted with the above, the learned counsel for applicant invited the attention of Court to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Satish Mehra Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Another reported in (2012) 13 SCC 614, wherein the Court has held that the veracity of proceeding can also be examined after the charges have been framed against the accused as the matter stands crystalized with the framing of charge order. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant contends that the preliminary objection raised by the learned A.G.A. is liable to be rejected.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State/opposite party no.1 and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satish Mehra (Supra), the preliminary objection raised by the learned A.G.A. for State/opposite party no.1 is liable to be rejected. It is accordingly rejected.

7. Learned counsel for applicant then submits that in view of the document occurring at page no. 57 of the paper book, the impugned charge-sheet cannot be sustained inasmuch as no covert or over act is attributable to the applicant in commission of the crime in question.

8. Despite repeated time having been granted to the learned A.G.A. for State/opposite party no.1 to obtain the case diary, the Investigating Officer has yet not sent the same to the learned A.G.A.

9. In view of the above, let the matter re-appear as fresh on 2nd April, 2025.

10. The Superintendent of Police, Railway, Bareilly Region, Bareilly is directed to ensure that the copy of the case diary is sent to the learned A.G.A. for State/opposite party no.1 on or before 1st April, 2025, failing which he shall remain present before this Court on the next date fixed. In compliance of above order, the learned A.G.A. has obtained case diary of concerned case crime number. With reference to Case Diary Parcha No. 22, the learned A.G.A. contends that as per CCTV footage, the complicity of applicant in the crime in question is established. As such, no interference is called for by this Court. In view of above, no inference regarding innocence of applicant can be drawn as per Forensic Science Laboratary Report, copy of which is on record as Annexure--5 to the affidavit. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. thus submits that no illegality can be attached to framing of charge order, passed by Court below. Referring to the judgement of Supreme Court in Tarun Jit Tejpal Vs. State of Goa, (2020) 14 SCC 556, the learned A.G.A. submits that prosecution of an accused can be maintained even in the case of grave suspicion. As such, no interference is warranted by this Court in present application. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the preliminary objection raised by learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application is clearly borne out from the record and further the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant, with reference to the record at this stage. As such no good ground exists to entertain the present application. In view of above, this application fails and is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 2.4.2025 Arshad