PATENDRA JAIN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Revision is to the order dated 21.7.2008, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Meerut in S.T. No. 311 of 2005, State v. Harbir and Ors. under Section 302/34, I.P.C., P.S. Kithore, district Meerut. By the impugned order, exercising the power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'the Cr.P.C.') the revisionists Patendra Jain and Shikhar Chand Jain have been summoned to face the trial with the charge-sheeted accused.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of this revision, in brief, are that dead body of an unknown person was found lying in Chhuiya Nala near the field of Tofa Singh situated in the jungle of village Shaulda, P.S. Kithore, district Meerut. After seeing the dead body, village chaukidar Raj Kumar Sharma submitted a written report at P.S. Kithore, district Meerut of 19.9.2004. On the basis of that report, a case under Section 302, I.P.C. was registered against unknown persons at Crime No. 239 of 2004. Further case of the prosecution is that Jagraj Singh, son of Sri Hansa, resident of village Titoda, P.S. Khatauli, district Muzaffarnagar on getting information that one dead body of some unknown person was recovered within the limits of P.S. Kithore, district Meerut, went to P.S. Kithore with other persons and seeing the photo of dead body and his clothes, told the police that photo and clothes are of his son Dinesh, who is missing since 18.9.2004. An application (Annexure-SA-I to the second supplementary-affidavit) was submitted by Jagraj Singh at P.S. Kithore in which it is alleged that his son Dinesh used to supply milk at the house of Lala Patendra Jain and Shikhar Chand Jain of Khatauli and some dispute had taken place between them about the rate of milk, due to which Lala Patendra Jain and Shikhar Jain had got his son implicated in a false case, in which he was sent to jail. It is further alleged in the said application that Dinesh had gone to Khatauli on 18.9.2004, but he did not come back and after making search for him, gumshudgi report was lodged on 27.9.2004 at P.S. Khatauli, district Muzaffarnagar. Further case of the prosecution is that the complainant Jagraj Singh went to his sasural village Kazipur situated within the limits of P.S. Kharkhauda, district Meerut on 8.10.2004 and he was told there by Ajay Pal Singh s/o Lature Singh and Raghunath Singh s/o Bhole Ram that they had seen Dinesh on 18.9.2004 at about 7.30 p.m. in the company of Satvir, Rajvir, Satish and Harbir. Suspicion was also shown by Jagraj Singh in the said application that Harbir, Satyavir, Rajvir and Satish have committed the murder of his son Dinesh due to collusion of Lala Patendra Jain and Shikhar Jain. It is also alleged in the said application that in Meerut also, some persons had seen the deceased Dinesh in the company of these persons. On the basis of aforesaid application, the case was investigated and ultimately charge-sheet was submitted under Section 302, I.P.C. by the police of P.S. Kithore (Meerut) against Harbir, Satish, Rajvir and Satyavir. After taking cognizance on the said charge-sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial, where S. T. No. 311 of 2005 was registered against the charge-sheeted accused. After framing charge against the charge-sheeted accused persons, evidence of the prosecution was taken in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Meerut, during which first informant Raj Kumar was examined as P.W. 1. Other witnesses examined by the prosecution in the said session trial are P.W. 2 Jagraj Singh, P.W. 3 Satvir Singh, P.W. 4 Vegpal, P.W. 5 Sunder, P.W. 6 Vijay Pal, P.W. 7 Hem Singh and P.W. 8 Ajay Pal Singh. After examination and cross-examination of these witnesses, an application bearing No. 141B was moved on behalf of the prosecution to summon Patendra Jain and Shikhar Chand Jain (Revisionists herein) to face the trial with charge-sheeted accused. After hearing parties counsel, learned court below exercising the power under Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure vide impugned order dated 21.7.2008 allowed the said application and summoned the revisionists to face the trial under Sections 302/34 and 120B/34, I.P.C. Hence, this revision.

(3.) I have heard arguments at length of Sri Satish Trivedi, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Swetashva Aggarwal, advocate, appearing for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State. Even in the revised list, nobody appeared for the complainant Jagraj Singh, although he has put in appearance through his counsel Sri T.K. Mishra, advocate.