High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Chandra v. State Of U.P. And Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 13196 of 1987  RD-AH 4438 (14 March 2007)
Hon'ble V. D. Chaturvedi, J.
Heard Shri K.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri P.N.Gangwar, learned counsel for the complainant and the learned A.G.A.
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings of case No.1262 of 1986 (State Vs.Ram Chandra) and also the charge sheet dated 8.8.1980 and 27.12.1980.
The charge sheet dated 27.12.1980 (Annexure No.3 to the petition) was filed for offences under Section 307 is on the record. But no charge sheet dated 8.8.1980 is on record. Rather it is F.R. dated 8.8.1980 filed in the petition as Annexure I.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that Mangali Ram, the brother in law of the injured Shukh Lal lodged a report against the petitioner Ram Chandra for causing fire arm injury to Shukh Lal; that the police submitted final report in the case on 8.8.1980. That on 1.3.1982 injured Shukhlal filed an application and an affidavit that some one had fired upon him causing injury; that he (injured) could not see the real assailants; that Mangali Ram lodged the report against Ram Chandra; that despite the said application the charge sheet was submitted on 27.12.1980.
It is manifest and noteworthy too that the charge sheet dated 27.12.1980 was submitted 15 months before the application dated 1st March, 1982 was given by Shukh Lal. The charge sheet was not submitted after the said application dated 1.3.1982. The application dated 1.3.1982 and the affidavit, therefore, should have no impact upon the charge sheet.
Another argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate did not apply his mind while taking cognizance on the charge sheet dated 27.12.1980. His argument is that the cognizance on the charge sheet dated 27.12.1980 was taken by the court on 24.7.1982 i.e. after 1.3.1982 when the affidavit and application by injured was moved.
A perusal of the affidavit and the application of Shukh Lal shows that he never denied the involvement of Ram Chandra in the incident. He stated in his affidavit and application that he could not see the assailants. If the injured could not see the assailants it would never negate the evidence of the other eye witness who has seen the assailant firing at injured. It is not necessary for the Magistrate to discuss the evidence while taking cognizance on the charge sheet.
Regarding the averment "that the learned Magistrate had accepted the final report" contained in para No.11 of the affidavit of ShukhLal, the learned counsel for the petitioner requested to ignore the said averment.
It is hoped that in future only those averments will be contained in the petition and the affidavit to which the petitioner and his counsel may stick and not otherwise .
In view of what has been discussed above, the petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
If the petitioner's counsel requests to be heard at the stage of framing of charge, a patient hearing be given to him by the trial court.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.