NARESH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above two proceedings have been initiated by co accused in the same S.T. No. 126 of 2009, State Vs. Dev Sharma and others, relating to crime no. 69 of 2000, under Sections 307, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Rabupura, District G.B. Nagar pending before Additional Sessions Judge / F.T.C. Court No. 3, G.B. Nagar and since relief sought in both the above proceedings relates to framing of charge and/or discharge hence both the cases were clubbed together and are being decided by this common order.

(2.) GRIEVANCE of the petitioner Naresh is against the order of framing charge dated 5.2.2010, u/s 307/120 B, I.P.C. whereas in Criminal Revision No. 512 of 2010, five revisionists(Dev Sharma, Jugal Kishore, Nahar Singh, all real sibling brothers, being son of late Chaturbhuj Sharma), Kanchhi Lal Sharma and Hari Kishan( both the real brothers, being son of late Murari Lal Sharma) are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18.1.2010 passed by the trial Judge by which he has refused to discharge them from aforementioned offences, which revisionist had claimed through their discharge application Paper No. 6 Kha.

(3.) SINCE I.O. had charge sheeted all the accused persons, they were summoned by the Magistrate and their case was committed to Session's Court for trial where it was registered as S.T. No.126 of 2009, State Vs. Deo Sharma and others and was allotted to Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No.3 Gautam Budh Nagar for trial. Under Section 227/228 Cr.P.C. five accused namely Dev Sharma, Nahar Singh, Jugul Kishore, Hari Kishan and Kanchhi Lal, all the revisionists claimed discharge through an application paper No. 6 Kha. Trial Judge, by impugned order dated 8.1.2010, rejected their discharge prayer and hence challenge to the said order has been made in Criminal Revision No.512 of 2010. Trial Judge thereafter charged all the accused persons U/Ss 307/120-B IPC on 5.2.2010 and therefore another named accused Naresh challenged that charge by preferring Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.9038 of 2011. In the revision injured Govardhan Sharma on behalf of informant as well as learned AGA for the state have filed counter affidavits to which rejoinder affidavit has also been filed. In the writ petition an impleadment application on behalf of injured Govardhan Sharma was filed, wherein he has stated that informant is in hand and gloves with the accused and hence his impleadment application was allowed and his counsel Sri Raj Kumar has been heard in opposition in both the proceedings as he stated that his counter affidavit in revision be considered in this writ petition and therefore, in joint agreement with both the sides and learned AGA, both the above case were heard finally and are being decided by this common order.