SIYARAM @ SHIVA RAM Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Jai Pal Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and Sri Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

(2.) By means of this criminal revision, the revisionist has prayed for setting aside/ quashing the order dtd. 17/08/2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Room No.4, Sultanpur in S.T. No.145 of 2019 (State Vs. Atma Ram and Others) whereby the discharge application of the revisionist has been rejected.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that as per opposite party no.2, her husband was kidnapped by the petitioner on 25/09/2000. The opposite party no.2 has filed an application under Sec. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on 9.10.2012 when her grievance was not redressed by the police concerned. Sri Jai Pal Singh has submitted that the opposite party no.2 has not explained the delay of more than 12 years in approaching the court filing application under Sec. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. However, on such application, an FIR was lodged on 19/01/2013 against the petitioner. The investigating agency carried out investigation and after recording the statements of various persons, some of them were family members and some of them were independent witnesses, submitted a final report on 04/04/2013 (Annexure No.12). Against such final report dtd. 04/04/2013, opposite party no.2 has filed protest petition on 09/12/2014 (Annexure No.13), therefore, Sri Jai Pal Singh has submitted that even the protest petition has been filed after more than 1 year and 8 months. Such protest petition was allowed by the learned court below on 17/09/2015 (Annexure No.14) and pursuant to the order dtd. 17/09/2015, further investigation was conducted and the final report was filed in favour of the revisionist.