High Court · 2025

1. Heard Mr. Ghan Shyam Dubey, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State- opposite party-1 and Mr. Adarsh Bhushan, the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party-2.

2. Perused the record.

3. Applicant-Raghvendra Tripathi @ Raghav, 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 the instant 482 Cr.P.C. application and to quash the impugned order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Gautambudh Nagar on the application (Paper No.42Kha) dated 17.08.2024 filed in Sessions Trial No.575/2019 (State vs. Raghvendra Tripathi) arising out of Case Crime No.283/2019, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Gautambudh Nagar, District Dankaur, Gautambudh Nagar and also to allow the application (Paper No.42Kha) filed in Sessions Trial No.575/2019 (State vs. Raghvendra Tripathi) arising out of Case Crime No.283/2019, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station - Dankaur, Gautambudh Nagar, District - Gautambudh Nagar. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Sessions Trial No.575/2019 (State vs. Raghvendra Tripathi) arising out of Case Crime No.283/2019, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Dankaur, Gautambudh Nagar, District Gautambudh Nagar during the pendency of the present 482 Cr.P.C. Application before this Hon'ble Court and/or may pass such other and further orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, otherwise the applicant will suffer an irreparable loss and injury."

4. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 15.05.2019, a delayed FIR dated 19.05.2019 was lodged by first informant-opposite party-2 Sonu Bhati and was registered as Case Crime No. 0283 of 2019, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, Police Station-Dankaur, District-Gautam Budh Nagar. In the aforesaid FIR, applicant-Raghvendra Tripathi @ Raghav has been nominated as solitary named accused.

5. After aforementioned FIR was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chaper-XII Cr.P.C. On the basis of material collected by him, during course of investigation, Investigating Officer, came to the conclusion that offence alleged against applicant is prima-facie established. He, therefore, opined to submit a charge sheet. Accordingly, Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet/police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

6. Upon submission of aforementioned charge sheet/police report, cognizance was taken upon same by the Jurisdictional Magistrate in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. However, as offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, therefore, the Jurisdictional Magistrate, after complying with provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Sessions in terms of Section 209 Cr.P.C.. Resultantly, Sessions Trial No. 575 of 2019 (State Vs. Raghvendra Tripathi), under Sections 302, 201 IPC, Police Station-Dankaur, District-Gautam Budh Nagar came to be registered and is now pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.-5, Gautam Budh Nagar.

7. Concerned Sessions Judge proceeded with the trial. In accordance with the mandate of Section 228 Cr.P.C., he, accordingly, proceeded to frame charges against charge sheeted accused. However, applicant, who is a charge sheeted accused, denied the same and demanded trial. Resultantly, the trial procedure commenced.

8. During the pendency of aforementioned Sessions Trial, an application dated 17.08.2024 (Paper No. 42-Kha) was filed by the prosecution in terms of Section 311 Cr.P.C. read with Section 91 Cr.P.C. for summoning of the Nodal Officer of the concerned mobile company along with a certificate as contemplated under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. Aforesaid application was not opposed by the accused-applicant. Ultimately, Court below, by means of order impugned dated 07.10.2024, rejected the aforesaid application.

9. Thus feeling aggrieved by the above order dated 07.10.2024 passed by Court below, applicant, 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.

10. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party- 1 and Mr. Adarsh Bhushan, the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party-2 have vehemently opposed the present application by raising a preliminary objection that since the order impugned is not against accused-applicant, therefore, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on his behalf is not maintainable. It is then contended that no application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. read with Section 91 Cr.P.C. was filed by accused-applicant before Court below for summoning the Nodal Officer of the concerned mobile company and further to produce the certificate as contemplated under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act by him. It is thus urged that it is the prosecution, which is going to suffer on account of such loophole in the prosecution evidence. However, by no stretch of imagination, no cause of action has arisen to the accused-applicant to challenge the above order dated 07.10.2024. On the above premise, they, therefore, contend that present application is misconceived and thus liable to be dismissed by this Court.

11. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.

12. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, Mr. Adarsh Bhushan, the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party-2 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application are clearly borne out from the record and furthermore the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record. In view of above, no good ground exists to entertain the present application.

13. As a result, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

14. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 7.4.2025 Vinay VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Mr. Ghan Shyam Dubey, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State- opposite party-1 and Mr. Adarsh Bhushan, the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party-2.

2. Perused the record.

3. Applicant-Raghvendra Tripathi @ Raghav, 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 the instant 482 Cr.P.C. application and to quash the impugned order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Gautambudh Nagar on the application (Paper No.42Kha) dated 17.08.2024 filed in Sessions Trial No.575/2019 (State vs. Raghvendra Tripathi) arising out of Case Crime No.283/2019, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Gautambudh Nagar, District Dankaur, Gautambudh Nagar and also to allow the application (Paper No.42Kha) filed in Sessions Trial No.575/2019 (State vs. Raghvendra Tripathi) arising out of Case Crime No.283/2019, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station - Dankaur, Gautambudh Nagar, District - Gautambudh Nagar. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Sessions Trial No.575/2019 (State vs. Raghvendra Tripathi) arising out of Case Crime No.283/2019, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Dankaur, Gautambudh Nagar, District Gautambudh Nagar during the pendency of the present 482 Cr.P.C. Application before this Hon'ble Court and/or may pass such other and further orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, otherwise the applicant will suffer an irreparable loss and injury."

4. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 15.05.2019, a delayed FIR dated 19.05.2019 was lodged by first informant-opposite party-2 Sonu Bhati and was registered as Case Crime No. 0283 of 2019, under Sections 302, 201 IPC, Police Station-Dankaur, District-Gautam Budh Nagar. In the aforesaid FIR, applicant-Raghvendra Tripathi @ Raghav has been nominated as solitary named accused.

5. After aforementioned FIR was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chaper-XII Cr.P.C. On the basis of material collected by him, during course of investigation, Investigating Officer, came to the conclusion that offence alleged against applicant is prima-facie established. He, therefore, opined to submit a charge sheet. Accordingly, Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet/police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

6. Upon submission of aforementioned charge sheet/police report, cognizance was taken upon same by the Jurisdictional Magistrate in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. However, as offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, therefore, the Jurisdictional Magistrate, after complying with provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Sessions in terms of Section 209 Cr.P.C.. Resultantly, Sessions Trial No. 575 of 2019 (State Vs. Raghvendra Tripathi), under Sections 302, 201 IPC, Police Station-Dankaur, District-Gautam Budh Nagar came to be registered and is now pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.-5, Gautam Budh Nagar.

7. Concerned Sessions Judge proceeded with the trial. In accordance with the mandate of Section 228 Cr.P.C., he, accordingly, proceeded to frame charges against charge sheeted accused. However, applicant, who is a charge sheeted accused, denied the same and demanded trial. Resultantly, the trial procedure commenced.

8. During the pendency of aforementioned Sessions Trial, an application dated 17.08.2024 (Paper No. 42-Kha) was filed by the prosecution in terms of Section 311 Cr.P.C. read with Section 91 Cr.P.C. for summoning of the Nodal Officer of the concerned mobile company along with a certificate as contemplated under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. Aforesaid application was not opposed by the accused-applicant. Ultimately, Court below, by means of order impugned dated 07.10.2024, rejected the aforesaid application.

9. Thus feeling aggrieved by the above order dated 07.10.2024 passed by Court below, applicant, 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.

10. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party- 1 and Mr. Adarsh Bhushan, the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party-2 have vehemently opposed the present application by raising a preliminary objection that since the order impugned is not against accused-applicant, therefore, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on his behalf is not maintainable. It is then contended that no application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. read with Section 91 Cr.P.C. was filed by accused-applicant before Court below for summoning the Nodal Officer of the concerned mobile company and further to produce the certificate as contemplated under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act by him. It is thus urged that it is the prosecution, which is going to suffer on account of such loophole in the prosecution evidence. However, by no stretch of imagination, no cause of action has arisen to the accused-applicant to challenge the above order dated 07.10.2024. On the above premise, they, therefore, contend that present application is misconceived and thus liable to be dismissed by this Court.

11. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.

12. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, Mr. Adarsh Bhushan, the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party-2 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application are clearly borne out from the record and furthermore the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record. In view of above, no good ground exists to entertain the present application.

13. As a result, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

14. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 7.4.2025 Vinay VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad