High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Vindhyachal Chaubey v. State Of U.P. & Others - CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15675 of 2007  RD-AH 16263 (3 October 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 15675 of 2007
Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner is the father of one Ratan Babu Chaubey, who was allegedly murdered on 2.1.1996. The first information report was lodged by the brother of the deceased naming five persons as accused. The police after investigation submitted a charge sheet against the informant and three others. After committal, the accused were tried by the Court of Sessions as Sessions Trial No. 212 of 1996. By judgment dated 23.11.2006, all the accused were acquitted. By this writ petition, the petitioner prays that the matter should be re-invested through an independent agency within a stipulated time as suggested by the order of the Sessions Judge dated 23.11.2006.
Firstly, this Court is not the executing Court of orders of sub-ordinate Courts, and secondly and more importantly, it was open to the learned Sessions Judge under section 319 Cr. P.C. to summon and try any other person who appeared to be guilty of an offence. Having failed to exercise that power, the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge who issued directions in a sessions trial that the matter should be re-investigated by an independent agency and the conduct of the police should also be investigated does not appear to be supported by any provision of Cr. P.C. conferring such a power upon the Court trying a sessions trial.
Again when a charge sheet had not been submitted against the accused named in the original F.I.R. but had been submitted against others, it virtually amounted to submission of a final report against the originally named accused. The complainant had his remedy at that stage also before the Magistrate where the charge sheet had been submitted which also does not appear to have been availed.
The incident being eleven years old, we are of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by the prayer made in this writ petition, which prayer also suffers from laches as the same had been made after one year of the judgment of the Sessions Court.
No explanation has been offered by the petitioner why this writ petition could not have been filed immediately after the petitioner came to know that the charge sheet had not been submitted against the originally named accused, and why the petitioner had to await the final decision of the sessions trial, because the grievance of the petitioner appears to be that the accused originally named in the first information report were the real assailants and the police wrongly submitted a charge sheet against innocent persons.
For all the reasons given above, we decline to interfere in the matter.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Dated: October 3, 2007
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.