Court No. - 20 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14905 of 2010 Petitioner :- Raghavendra Pratap Singh Alias Ram Veer Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Gyanendra Srivastava Respondent Counsel :- Govt.Advocate Hon'ble Ashok Kumar Roopanwal,J.
This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been moved with the request that the trial court be directed to frame charges under Sections 326, 307, 452 and 120-B, IPC against the accused persons in addition to the charges already framed.
It appears from the record that a charge sheet under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506, IPC was submitted by the police against O.P. Nos.2 to 5. This charge sheet was filed after investigation conducted on the first information report lodged by the applicant. During the trial statements of three witnesses were recorded and thereafter, an application under Section 319, Cr.P.C. was moved by the prosecution requesting thereby that a charge under Section 452, IPC be also framed against O.P. Nos.2 to 5. That application was rejected. Thereafter, an application under Section 216, Cr.P.C. was moved with the same prayer for which the application under Section 319, Cr.P.C. was moved. The application under Section 216, Cr.P.C. was rejected on the ground that as the application for the same purpose i.e. application moved under Section 319, Cr.P.C. has already been rejected there was no justification to allow the application moved under Section 216, Cr.P.C. The order passed on the application under Section 216, Cr.P.C. was challenged in revision and the revision was dismissed. Hence, the present application. Heard Mr. Gyanendra Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.
Mr. Srivastava argued that the application under section 216, Cr.P.C. was wrongly rejected by the trial court and therefore, it is necessary that a direction be issued by this court to order the trial court to frame charges under Section 326, 307, 452 and 120-B, IPC against the accused persons. A look at the record would reveal that in the application under Section 319, Cr.P.C. request was made for framing charge under Section 452, IPC. That request could not be made under Section 319, Cr.P.C. as this Section was not meant for this purpose. When this defect was detected, another application under Section 216, Cr.P.C. for adding the charge under Section 252, IPC was moved. That application was rejected on the ground that an earlier application on the same prayer was refused.
I feel that this opinion of the trial court was perfectly erroneous. Once an application was not maintainable for adding the charge under Section 319, Cr.P.C. that application was simply a waste paper and the order passed thereon. The application under Section 216, Cr.P.C. was a correct application for adding or alteration of the charges and that application should have been decided purely on the basis of material available in the case diary and the evidence adduced before the court. As it was not done, hence, the order passed by the trial court on the application passed under Section 216, Cr.P.C. and thereafter, the order passed by the revisional court dismissing the revision are patently wrong and are liable to be ignored . Consequently, the prayer made by the applicant in this application is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, this application is allowed. It is directed that the trial court shall ignore all the previous orders on the subject, shall consider the application under Section 216, Cr.P.C. de novo and shall decide it as expeditiously as possible on the basis of the evidence collected in the case diary as well as before the court.
Order Date :- 9.7.2010 T. Sinha