High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:187992 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 965 of 2023 Revisionist :- Kamlesh Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ajay Srivastava,Kuldeep Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Firdos Ahmad Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. 1. Case called out in revised list. No one appears on behalf of revisionist to press this criminal revision. However the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Firdos Ahmad learned counsel representing first informant/opposite party-2 are present. 2. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 23.01.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Azamgarh in S. T. No. 106 of 2020 (State vs. Ram Vilash and others) arising out Case Crime No. 237 of 2019 under Sections 302 and 34 I.P.C., Police Station Maihnagar, District Azamgarh. 3. Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 25.12.2019, a prompt F.I.R dated 25.12.2019 was
Legal Reasoning
lodged by first informant Geeta Devi and was registered as Crime No. 0237 of 2019 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B, 34 I.P.C. Police Station-Maihnagar, District Azamgarh. In the aforesaid F.I.R. four persons namely Belash Yadav, Kamlesh Yadav, Satish Yadav @ Laloo, Anil Yadav have been nominated as named accused whereas an unknown person has also been arraigned as an accused. 4. The gravamen of the allegations made in the F.I.R is to the effect that named accused Satish Yadav @ Laloo and Kamlesh Yadav as well as an unknown person are alleged to have caused death of husband of first informant by indiscriminate filing. 5. Investigating Officer after completion of statutory investigation of aforementioned case crime number ultimately submitted the charge sheet. After submission of aforementioned charge sheet, cognizance was taken upon same by the concerned Magistrate. Since crime in question is exclusively triable by the court of sessions, resultantly, concerned Magistrate committed the case of Court of Sessions. 6. As a consequence of above, Sessions Trial No. 106 of 2020 (State vs. Ram Vilash and others) came to be registered. During the course of trial, prosecution adduced P.W.-1 Geeta Devi (first informant). This witness in her deposition before court below has implicated the revisionist also in the crime in question. Subsequently, on the basis of deposition of P.W.-1, prosecution filed an application dated 13.10.2022 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. praying therein that accused Kamlesh Yadav be also summoned to face trial as his complicity is also established in the crime in question as per deposition of P.W.-1. The said application came to be allowed by court below vide order dated 23.01.2023. 7. Thus feeling aggrieved by above mentioned order, revisionist has now approached this Court by means of present criminal revision.
Legal Reasoning
8. Having heard the learned A.G.A. for State, the learned counsel representing first informant/opposite party-2 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the issue, which arises for determination in present criminal revision is: What are the parameters for exercise of jurisdiction under section 319 Cr.P.C As a corollary to above, whether the order impugned is within the established parameters or not. 9. Parameters regarding exercise of jurisdiction by Courts under section 319 Cr.P.C. has been considered time and again by Supreme Court. The chronology of same is as under: (i) Bholu Ram Vs. State of Punjab and another (2008) 9 SCC 140 (ii) Dharam Pal and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2014) 3 SCC 306 (Constitution Bench) (iii) Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2014) 3 SCC 92 (Constitution Bench) (iv) Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria and Another Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (2014) 5 SCC 568 (v) Jogendra yadav and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another, (2015) 9 SCc 244 (vi) Brijendra Singh and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2017) SCC 706 (vii) S Mohammed Ispahani Vs. Yogendra Chandak and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 226 (viii) Deepu @ Deepak Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2019) 2 SCC 393 (ix) Dev Wati and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another (2019) 4 SCC 329 (x) Periyasamai and Others Vs. S.Nallasamy, (2019) 4 SCC 342 (xi) Sunil Kumar Gupta and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2019) 4 SCC 556 (xii) Rajesh and Others Vs. State of Haryana, (2019) 6 SCC 368 (xiii) Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs. State of Punjab, (2019) 6 SCC 638 (xiv) Mani Pushpak Joshi Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another, (2019) 9 SCC 805 (xv) Sugreev Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2019) SCC Online Sc 390 (xvi) Labhuji Amratji Thakor Vs. State of Gujarat, (2019) 12 SCC 644 (xvii) Shiv Prakash Mishra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2019) 7 SCC 806 (xviii) Sartaj Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2021) 5 SCC 337 (xix) Manjeet Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Others, 2021 SCC Online SC 632 10. When the order impugned is examined in the light of the observations made in the aforesaid judgements, the Court finds that court below has exercised it's jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after taking into consideration the statement in chief/examination in chief of P.W.-1. By virtue of law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh (supra), the jurisdiction under Section 319 can be exercised by court below on the basis of statement of one of the witness. As per deposition of P.W.-1, Geeta Devi specific role of filing gun shot has been assigned to revisionist Kamlesh Yadav. 11. When order impugned is examined in the light of above, the same neither appears to be illegal, or in-excess of jurisdiction. Court below has exercised its jurisdiction with due diligence and not in a casual and cavalier fashion. Court below has summoned the revisionist as strong and cogent evidence has emerged against revisionist. Findings recorded by court below are perfectly just and legal and cannot be said to be illegal, perverse or erroneous. Once the findings recorded by court below cannot be dislodged the conclusion cannot be altered. 12. For the facts and reasons mentioned above, present criminal revision fails and is liable to be dismissed. 13. It is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 27.9.2023 YK Digitally signed by :- YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad