Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DAYA RAM YADAV versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Daya Ram Yadav v. State Of U.P. - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 14404 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 20104 (28 November 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

 (Court no. 48)

Criminal Misc. Application  No. 14404 of 2006

Daya Ram Yadav, son of Bhagwati Prasad,

Resident of Village Dharampur @ Ghurwa,

Police Station Tharwai, District Allahabad.......Accused-applicants.

Vs.

State of U.P. ........ Opp.Party.

****

Hon'ble Barkat Ali Zaidi, J

1. Heard In a trial (Session Trial No. 351 of 2006) State Vs. Nankoo Lal Yadav ect. the Additional Sessions Judge. Fast Track Court No.6, Allahabad rejected the application of the three accused in the case praying that the charge should not be framed for the present in the case because a cross case (Criminal Case No.35 of 2006, State Vs. Ram Abhilash and others, under Sections 147,148,149,452,323,436 and 506 I.P.C. )  is pending in the court of Additional Chief Magistrate Court No. 14, Allahabad and has not yet been committed for trial.

2. The Sessions Judge rejected the application and that is why the accused-applicant has come to this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

3. I have heard Sri Prem Prakash Advocate for the applicant Sri R.S. Yadav, Sri A.K. Yadav and Dilpeep Kumar Srivastava for the complainant and the Additional Government Advocate for the Opp.Party State.

4. There is no scope for any complication because the question whether a cross case is pending or not is not to be considered at the time of framing the charge. If at all there is a cross case, it will have to be dealt with in accordance with law at the time of trial. The question that a criminal case is pending, is irrelevant so far as framing of charge is concerned, because, the charge has to be framed on the basis of the facts of the case  and the facts of the cross case do not have to be taken into account.

5. Since, the High Court has directed expeditious disposal of  the Sessions Trial, the trial court shall ask  the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to expedite the disposal of the alleged cross case and then the trial Sessions Judge may examine the question whether it is a cross case or not and if it is a cross case, they may both be proceeded simultaneously one after the other. The trial Sessions Judge can, therefore, proceed with the framing of charge.

6. The application is rejected.

Dt:  28.11.2006

14404/06 jnm/n.u.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.