AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—The challenge by way of this Criminal Misc. application is to the order of the cognizance dated 19.03.2007 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal complaint case No. 5114 of 2004 titled as Jogendra Singh v. Yuvraj Singh and Ors. for the offence under Sections 109, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307 and 214 Indian Penal Code pertaining to police station kotwali Roorkee District Haridwar.
It appears that complainant Sri Jogendra Singh and applicants Nos. 1 to 13 do reside in the same colony Durga colony, Dogra line, behind Roorkee Cantt,P.S. Kotwali, Roorkee so there were some points of differences between Sri Jogendra Singh and applicants. A quarrel occurred on 01.06.1994 at about 10 P.M. between Jogendra Singh on the one hand and the applicants on the other. The cross F.I.R. was lodged in the intervening night of 1/2 June, 1994 against each other. Sri Jogendra Singh is retired army personnel who resides in this colony after making construction of his house. The chargesheets were submitted on the basis of FIR whereupon one Sessions Trial No. 53/1996 against all the applicants was proceeded.
On the other hand, on cross facts, the Sessions Trial No. 393 of 1995 was proceeded against Jogendra Singh and it has been argued on behalf of the applicant that Sri Jogendra Singh was punished on the conclusion of that Sessions trial.
Learned Counsel for the applicants disclosed that he has No. knowledge regarding the fate of Sessions Trial No. 53/1996. On the basis of same facts and incident which was the basis of chargesheet against the applicants, the complaint was filed by Sri Jogendra Singh in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on dated 01.02.1995. Jodgendra Singh examined himself u/s 200 Code of Criminal Procedure alongwith his 4-5 witnesses u/s 202 Code of Criminal Procedure and then the impugned order was passed by learned Magistrate.
After filing this petition, the operation of impugned order was stayed on 02.07.2007 by this Court.
Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, it can meticulously be observed that for the same facts and incident which was reduced in the form of FIR against applicants in the intervening night of 1/2 June, 1994, the chargesheet was submitted against applicants and after committing the case to the Sessions, a session trial No. 53/96 was pending in the court. Yet making those very facts and incident, the basis; a complaint was filed by Sri Jogendra Singh after seven months of the incident i.e. on 01.02.1995. It is amazing that the complaint remained pending at the pre-cognizance stage in the court of Magistrate for more than eleven years and cognizance could have been taken after recording the evidence as stated above. The complaint in the court of Magistrate, certainly could not have been filed on the basis of same incident wherefore the chargesheet had already been submitted after investigation by police. This was strictly barred so this Court was very much justified to stay the operation of cognizance order.
It has been pleaded on behalf of the learned Counsel for the private Respondent that there was No. occasion for the applicants to approach the Court u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure If they were adversely affected by the Cognizance order, then they should have taken the recourse u/s 210 Code of Criminal Procedure In this regard, this Court is of the view that Section 210 Code of Criminal Procedure is not directly attracted in the above circumstances. Further, the powers of this Court u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure are plenary one and Court was not constrained to ask the applicant to take recourse u/s 210 Code of Criminal Procedure
In view of the above, this Criminal Misc. application has merits and should be allowed. The application moved u/s 482 is allowed. Impugned order of cognizance is set aside.