High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2317 of 2021 Revisionist :- Govind Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Satyendra Narayan Singh,Pankaj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kamal Dev Rai And Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2579 of 2021 Revisionist :- Annu Alias Anuj Bhadauriya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Bhupendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. Since both the afore-captioned criminal revisions have been filed against the order dated 27.7.2021 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah in case crime No. 456 of 2020 (State Vs. Nikhil and others) whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah took cognizance of the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 302/34 IPC, police station Civil Lines, District Etawah.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Shri Satyendra Narain Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist in Criminal Revision No. 2317 of 2021 and Shri Bhupendra Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists in Criminal Revision No. 2579 of 2021 and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State in both the revisions in opposition and perused the record of the case. The facts that formed the bedrock of these revisions are that an FIR was lodged on 14.12.2020 by Uday Pratap Singh at Case Crime No. 0456 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 and 302 IPC, police station Civil Lines, district Etawah inter alia with the allegations that on 11.12.2020 accused-Nikhil and Ajay alias Chhotu came to the house of his nephew, Akhil and started abusing him. However, on seeing the people of the vicinity gathering, they left the spot by extending threat of dire consequences. On 13.12.2020 at about 7.00 PM, when Akhil along with Ganga Singh alias Suraj on one motorcycle and Mithun and Brahma Kumar on other motorcycle were going to Etawah due to some urgent piece of work and as soon as they reached Nagla Mahjit, a car bearing Registration No. UP 80 BJ 5701 hit the motorcycle from behind on which Akhil was pillion rider, as a result thereof, Akhil and Ganga Singh fell down on the road. Thereafter, Nikhil, Ajay, Govind, Sumit, Annu alias Anuj Bhadauria and Ankur Bhadauria got down from the car and indiscriminately assaulted Akhil and Ganga Singh with lathi and danda. On seeing the accused assaulting Akhil and Ganga Singh, the witnesses Mithun and Brahm Singh, who were also going on motorcycle with them ran away and proceeded to the police station. The accused left Akhil and Ganga on noticing that they have died. The police took Akhil and Ganga Singh to the District Hospital, where Akhil (deceased) were declared brought dead, whereas Ganga Singh was under treatment. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists that although the first information report was lodged under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 and 302 IPC, but the investigating ofÏcer after culmination of investigation submitted charge sheet against the revisionists under sections 279, 338, 304-A, 427 IPC. Learned counsel for the revisionists submit that the learned Magistrate has erred in law in taking cognizance against the revisionists under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 and 302/34 IPC. Learned counsel for the revisionists also submitted that at the time of taking cognizance, learned Magistrate is only required to see the evidence collected by the investigating ofÏcer. Per contra learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State submitted that police report is an opinion of the investigating ofÏcer and the Magistrate is not bound by the opinion of the investigating ofÏcer. Learned Additional Government Advocate further submits that Magistrate has ample power to issue process even if the police recommend that there is no sufÏcient ground for proceeding further and, therefore, the order dated 27.7.2021 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah does not call for any interference. Having examined the matter in its entirety, I find that the grounds taken in the revision reveal that many of them relate to disputed question of fact. The appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court. The taking of cognizance of the offence is an area exclusively within the domain of a Magistrate. The Magistrate is not duty bound to accept the conclusion drawn by the investigating ofÏcer because the same is not a substantive piece of evidence and has ample powers to disagree with the police report filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. while taking cognizance of the offence. This court is of the view that at the stage of taking cognizance of the case and summoning the accused, the court below is not required to go into the merit and demerit of the case. Genuineness or otherwise of the allegations cannot be even determined at the stage of summoning the accused. The power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised where the allegations are required to be proved before the trial Court and quashing the criminal proceedings scuttling a full-fledged trial at the stage of summoning the accused on the basis of assessment of the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is not admissible in evidence is not proper. The disputed questions of facts and defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at the pre-trial stage, which can be more appropriately gone into by the trial court at the appropriate stage. It is also well settled that charge can be altered at any stage of trial considering the material on record and the accused as well as prosecution can raise their objection at that stage. Whether this case comes under Section 304A IPC or 302 IPC is a matter of prove in accordance with law before the trial Court, therefore no finding can be recorded by this Court at this stage. In view of the above I find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order and criminal proceeding against the revisionists. Accordingly, the relief as sought by the revisionists is hereby refused. Both the revisions lack merits and are accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 2.3.2022 Ishrat Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD ISHRAT Date: 2022.03.05 17:45:03 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad