GAYATRI PRASAD PRAJAPATI Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dtd. 5/10/2021 passed by the Special Judge, MP, MLA/Additional Session Judge, Court No.19, Lucknow, whereby the charges against the accused-petitioner have been framed under Ss. 420, 465, 468, 471, 203, 211 read with Sec. 120-B IPC.

(2.) Sri Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially charge sheet dtd. 23/7/2017 was filed against the petitioner for offences under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471, 203 and 120-B IPC. On the said charge sheet, cognizance was taken on 31/7/2017 for offences under Ss. 211 and 120-B IPC by the learned Magistrate. The said order taking cognizance dtd. 31/7/2017 was challenged by the prosecution in Criminal Revision No.590 of 2017. However, the learned revisional court dismissed the said revision by a detailed judgment and order dtd. 13/8/2020 and affirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance for offences only under Ss. 211 and 120-B IPC.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that there was no further evidence brought before the Court to support the charges for offences under Ss. 420, 465, 468, 471, 203 IPC. However, the learned trial court has framed the charges for the said offences against the petitioner vide impugned order dtd. 5/10/2021. It has been further submitted that once the learned Magistrate and the revisional Court have considered the evidence, which was brought on record and they did not find that the offences under Ss. 420, 465, 468, 471, 203 IPC were prima facie made out, there was no occasion for the learned Magistrate to frame the charges for the said offences on the same material. He has also submitted that the petitioner did not file the discharge application of the offences under Ss. 420, 465, 468, 471, 203 IPC as he did not have any opportunity to file the discharge application in respect of the said offences.