LAWS(ALL)-2007-8-53

ANOOP SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On August 10, 2007
ANOOP SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMAR Saran, J. This application was filed for quashing of an order dated 1-6-2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Banda, Court No. 1, summoning the applicant in S. T. No. 66 of 2004, State v. Ajay Singh in a case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 IPC, P. S. Girwan, District Banda, in a proceeding under Section 319 Cr. P. C.

(2.) I had reserved the judgment on 6-7-2007 as learned Counsel for the applicant stated that he wanted to furnish written arguments. However, the written arguments were not furnished. Hence I proceed to pass the order.

(3.) EVEN on facts, the allegations in the F. I. R. were that in the incident dated 30-8-2001 the deceased Randhir Singh was fired upon when he was going in front of the door of the house of Jiledar Singh. In that case the applicant was described as the main accused, who resorted to firing on the deceased Randhir Singh. For some reasons in this case, though there is direct evidence, the police had not submitted a charge-sheet against the applicant, but only charge-sheeted the other five accused, who were named in the F. I. R. After the examination-in-chief of the informant Saroj Kumar Singh, who corroborated his version in the F. I. R. , and attested to his presence along with other witnesses Chhatra Pal Singh and Bobboo Singh at the spot, the trial Judge passed the impugned order dated 1-6-2007 summoning the applicant. This is not a case where it could be said prima facie that there was no reasonable prospect of the case against the applicant ending in conviction. The order summoning the applicant had also not been passed by way of a fishing enquiry. The eye- witness, who is also the informant, had given direct evidence in Court about the involvement of the applicant, who was show to be main accused even in the F. I. R. hence the case of Palanisamy Gounder and Anr. (supra) is not at all applicable. Likewise the case of Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq and Anr. (supra) is also not applicable. Facts in the said cases were completely different.