Asif Ahmad Siddiqui vs State Of U.P. And Another
| Citation | 2021(3) KLJ 614 |
| Date of Judgment | 1 December, 2020 |
| Court | HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD |
| Case Type | Criminal case |
| Appellant | Manoj Kumar Patel |
| Respondent | State of U.P. and 4 others |
| Bench | Hon’ble Dinesh Pathak,J. |
| Referred | Section 307, 352, 727, 326-A of I.P.C. |
FACTS OF THE CASE
The informant and his cousin (son of his mother’s sister) Manoj Kumar(revisionist herein) were working in the Madan Textile. On 07.01.2016, duo, after completion of their work, were going to the house of Manoj, situated in Benipur Khurd by their respective motorcycle. At about, 08:45 p.m., while they reached in the village Benikhurd near the house of Molaee, four persons namely Vansraaj Patel, Vijay Patel, Ramesh Patel and Mahendra, who were inimically with the Manoj, had stopped the motorcycle of Manoj and pored kerosene oil over him, with intention to kill and set him ablaze. Seeing the screams of Manoj, informant had raised alarm. While he had been chased by Vansraaj and Ramesh, he ran away after leaving his motorcycle. In the mean-time, co-villagers had gathered there and aforesaid four accused fled away from the scene. With the help of villagers fire of Manoj as well as his motorcycle was extinguished. During process of extinguishing, Prakash Patel and Golu Patel were also injured. With the help of the villagers Manoj was taken to the Kabirchaurra Hospital through ambulance from where he was referred to B.H.U. and due to paucity of place he has been admitted in Adarsh Hospital, Sundarpur .
Issue :
- Whether or not the accused is guilty under section 397 of Ipc.
ARGUMENTS
After hearing the matter at length, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 to 5 has raised preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present revision in view of the express bar engrafted under sub-Section 2 of Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (In brevity Cr.P.C.) to entertain a revision u/s 397(1) Cr.P.C. against an interlocutory order passed during the pendency of trial of the case. He has submitted that impugned order dtd. 27.10.2020 passed by the Trial Court refusing the acceptance/admission of required documents on record as mentioned in the Application No. 79 Kha, dated 21.10.2020, under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order and the instant revision petition, which has been preferred challenging the impugned order by which aforesaid application filed by the present revisionist has been rejected, is not maintainable in the eye of law, therefore, same may be dismissed in limine.
The revisionist has vehemently opposed the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 qua maintainability of the instant revision which has been filed against the interlocutory order, under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. It is submitted that rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. amounts to final disposal/termination of the interim proceeding . Therefore, sanctity of the aforesaid impugned order could be examined by this Hon’ble High Court in exercising it’s revisional power under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C.
Judgement
After investigation, Investigating Officer had submitted charge-sheet dated 31.01.2016. Vide order dated 29.03.2016, learned Trial Court, had framed charges against all the four accused persons, as mentioned in the F.I.R., under Section 307/34, 352 and 402 I.P.C.. As the matter proceeded, at hearing stage Manoj Patel(victim), revisionist herein, has moved an application dated 21.10.2020 (Application No. 79 Kha), under Section 311 Cr.P.C., beseeching acceptance/admission of medico-legal report, prescriptions, discharge-sheet of the injured and for marking of exhibit on the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and also for putting a question to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with respect to written report (Ex. K-1) . Aforesaid application No. 79-Kha dated 21.10.2020, was rejected by the impugned order dated 27.10.2020, which is under challenged in the instant revision.
After hearing the matter at length, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 to 5 has raised preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present revision in view of the express bar engrafted under sub-Section 2 of Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (In brevity Cr.P.C.) to entertain a revision u/s 397(1) Cr.P.C. against an interlocutory order passed during the pendency of trial of the case. He has submitted that impugned order dtd. 27.10.2020 passed by the Trial Court refusing the acceptance/admission of required documents on record as mentioned in the Application No. 79 Kha, dated 21.10.2020, under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order and the instant revision petition, which has been preferred challenging the impugned order by which aforesaid application filed by the present revisionist has been rejected, is not maintainable in the eye of law, therefore, same may be dismissed in limine .
REFERENCES
written by Khushi Gadia intern under legal vidhiya.
