Allahabad High Court High Court

Om Prakash And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 February, 2010

Allahabad High Court
Om Prakash And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 February, 2010
Court No. - 50

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5558 of 2009

Petitioner :- Om Prakash And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
Petitioner Counsel :- P.S. Pundir
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble B.N. Shukla,J.

This revision has been preferred by the revisionists against the order dated
3.12.2009 passed by Addl. District Judge/F.T.C. No. 2, Meerut in S.T. No.
1089 of 2009 (State Vs. Om Prakash and others) under section 147, 148, 323,
504, 506 IPC relating to P.S. Inchauli, District Meerut by which the learned
Judge has passed the order for framing additional charge under section 452
IPC.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the record.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists that the police has
submitted charge-sheet after due investigation under section 147, 148, 323,
504, 506 IPC and no prima facie case under section 452 IPC was found even
then the trial court has ordered for framing charge under section 452 IPC. The
trial court was competent to frame charge under section 216 Cr.P. after
recording prosecution evidence but instead of doing so the trial court has
framed charge merely on the application moved from the side of the
prosecution and thus committed illegality in passing the impugned order.

Learned A.G.A. has not disputed this fact.

I have gone through the impugned order. There was no material before the
learned trial court to frame the charge under section 452 IPC and as per
provision of section 216 Cr.P.C. additional charge could be framed after
recording evidence and if after recording the evidence it was found by the trial
court that case under section 452 IPC is also made out then the charge could
be framed under this section also but before recording the evidence the
impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge is liable to be set-asdie
because there is no evidence for framing charge under section 452 IPC at this
stage and the learned Judge has committed illegality.

The revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 3.12.2009 passed by
the learned trial Judge is set-aside.

Order Date :- 1.2.2010
Masarrat