TORAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicants Sri K.K. Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State and Sri Vivekanand Rai, Advocate, representing opposite party no. 2.

(2.) ON a written complain given by opposite party no. 2 Case Crime No. 32 of 2012, under Sections 323, 324 I.P.C., Police Station Kagarol, District Agra was registered. The Investigating Officer submitted charge -sheet under Sections 323, 324 I.P.C. whereupon the Magistrate took cognizance under the aforesaid sections and fixed a date for appearance of the accused for framing of charges. The accused have already obtained bail in the aforesaid two sections. In the meantime the complainant opposite party no. 2. submitted an application dated 10.09.2012 praying therein that the Investigating Officer had not submitted a correct report and in fact upon advise of the Medical Officer X -ray and the C.T. Scan was carried out in which left side parietal bone was found fractured as such Sections 307/308 I.P.C. be added, and after taking cognizance matter be committed to the Sessions Court. It appears that this application dated 10.09.2012 was rejected by the Magistrate by order dated 11.10.2012 (Annexure no. 5 to the petition). In the meantime it appears that opposite party no. 2 complainant had preferred an Application under Section 482 No. 38869 of 2012 -Samundra Singh Versus State of U.P. and others. The said application was disposed of by order dated 05.02.2013 with a direction to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 9 Agra to decide the application dated 10.09.2012 within a period of three months. The order dated 05.02.2013 is reproduced below:

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant has submitted that once the application dated 10.09.2012 had already been rejected by order dated 11.10.2012, the direction issued by this Court on 05.02.2013 was unwarranted and had been obtained without placing the correct fact before the Court. He further submits that the order dated 05.02.2013 nowhere set aside the order dated 11.10.2012 passed by the Magistrate nor did direct the Magistrate to decide the application dated 10.09.2012 afresh, even if it had been decided earlier. He has further submitted that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance under an additional section in an offence for which cognizance had been taken once. Reliance had been placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat Versus Girish Radhakrishnan Varde reported in : 2014 Cri. L.J. 570 and reference had been made to paragraph 17 of the said report. Based upon the said judgment it has been submitted that the correct stage for addition or subtraction of offence under I.P.C. is at the time of framing of charge and not before as such the Court below had committed the illegality in adding Section 308 I.P.C. at a later stage after cognizance had been taken under Sections 323/324 I.P.C.