Manoj Saxena vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

The challenge in this revision is made to order framing charge dated 30.03.2022, passed in Sessions Trial No.156 of 2018, (Case Crime No.3652 of 2009), State Vs. Manoj Saxena, by the court of Special Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar (“the case”). The revision is delayed. Delay Condonation Application IA No.6 of 2024 has been filed.

Heard on the delay condonation application.

Having considered, the delay in filing the revision is condoned.

The delay condonation application is allowed.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record.

The case is based on an FIR No. 180 of 2009, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3(X) of the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“the Act”), according to which on 23.09.2009, at 7:40 PM, the wife of the informant was abused with caste-coloured remarks and beaten up by the revisionist and the co-accused. Some of the co-accused entered into the house of the informant. It is this FIR in which after investigation, Chargesheet No.171 of 2009 was submitted and cognizance taken. It is the basis of the case. In the case, on 30.03.2022, charges were framed, which is impugned herein.

Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that similarly situated co-accused Lalla Yadav and Dharmpal Yadav have filed two separate petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,, for quashing the chargesheet and cognizance order in C482 No.955 of 2012, Dharmpal Yadav and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another, and C482 No.504 of 2012, Lalla Yadav Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another (“the earlier petitions”). They have been decided and the court has held that no prima facie offence under Sections 3(1)(X) of the Act is made out against them and also the court held that since the co-accused Lalla Yadav and Dharmpal Yadav did not enter into the house of the informant, offence under Section 452 IPC is not made out. It is argued that, in fact, the revisionist, in the instant case, had also not entered into the house of the informant, which is evident as per the FIR and as per the statement of the victim. It is argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that the case is covered by the direction of the court passed in the earlier writ petitions.

Learned State Counsel admits that it is a case covered by the direction of the Court passed on 03.09.2013 in the earlier petitions.

On the similar facts, the Court has already passed judgment on 03.09.2013 in the earlier petitions, therefore, the instant revision is also covered by the judgment dated 03.09.2013, passed in the earlier petitions and is decided accordingly.

No prima facie case is made out the revisionist for the offence under Section 3(1)(X) of the Act and Section 452 IPC. The charges under Sections 3(1)(X) of the Act and Section 452 IPC are quashed.

The trial of the revisionist for the remaining Sections shall continue.

The order framing charge dated 30.03.2022, is modified as indicated above.

The revision is disposed of, accordingly.