DINESH TIWARI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-2014-7-37
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on
July 07,2014
DINESH TIWARI
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
BHAWNA BAI VS. GHANSHYAM [LAWS(SC)-2019-12-3] [REFERRED TO]BASIPONGU PRIYANKA VS. SHAIL MAHABOOB HUSSAIN [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-12-54] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2022-4-229] [REFERRED TO]
AKASH KUMAR @ SEHJAZ KHAN VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2017-6-17] [REFERRED TO]
HEISNAM JOYKUMAR SINGH VS. THE STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2015-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHIR KUMAR MARWAHA VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(DLH)-2022-4-49] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDRA PRATAP SHAHI @ PAPPU SHAHI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-10-3] [REFERRED TO]
RAVEENDRA KAUR VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2021-5-18] [REFERRED TO]
SHATRUDHAN TIWARI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2022-4-286] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHIR KUMAR VS. CBI [LAWS(DLH)-2023-1-411] [REFERRED TO]
ESWARAN VS. STATE REP BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2018-8-501] [REFERRED TO]
NEELKANTH YADAV VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2017-2-100] [REFERRED TO]
SHOWKAT AHMAD TEESA VS. STATE AND OTHERS [LAWS(J&K)-2017-9-25] [REFERRED TO]
ANKIT MLHOTRA VS. STATE OF C.G. [LAWS(CHH)-2017-10-57] [REFERRED TO]
ROOP SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-2022-3-24] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDER @ TANNU @ TANVA VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2022-6-29] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-12-43] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL TUTEJA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-10-13] [REFERRED TO]
NIRMALA SAHU, W/O VIKRAM SAHU VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2017-4-31] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11th December, 2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.26878 of 2007. By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the application filed by the appellant- accused u/s 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the order dated 1st September, 2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C No.3, Basti in Sessions Trial No.207/07 in State v. Ram Vijay Yadav etc. By the said order, the Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge against the appellant-accused for the offence u/s 302, 323, 504 and 506 IPC.
(3.)The factual matrix of the case is as under:
One Mahender Prasad Tiwari complainant lodged an FIR against the present appellant-Dinesh Tiwari, Sadhu Saran and Ram Vijay Yadav for the offence u/s 302, 323, 504 and 506 IPC in Police Station Mahuli, District Sant Kabir Nagar. It was registered as Crime No.84/2006. It was alleged that the appellant along with Sadhu Saran committed murder of Arvind Kumar Tiwari son of the complainant. Reasons for enmity and detail event of murder were mentioned in the FIR.
Police started the investigation but subsequently, on the order of the Government the investigation was transferred to CBCID. CBCID submitted charge sheet against Sadhu Saran Yadav co-accused for the offence u/s 302, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. It was mentioned in the charge sheet that investigation shall continue against rest of the accused persons. The CJM took cognizance of the offence vide order dated 8th May, 2006. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was registered as S.T. No. 149/2006 titled State v. Sadhu Saran Yadav. Thereafter, CBCID submitted the charge sheet against Ram Vijay Yadav for the offence u/s 302, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and as against the appellant for the offence u/s 323, 504 and 506 IPC. No charge sheet was submitted against the appellant for the offence u/s 302 IPC. The cognizance was taken by CJM on charge sheet no.5A of 2006 on 23rd January, 2007. Bail was granted to the appellant for the offence u/s 323, 504 and 506 IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the CJM after taking cognizance and the Sessions Court framed charge against the appellant for the offence u/s 302 IPC, apart from Section 323, 504 and 506 IPC.
(2.)This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11th December, 2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.26878 of 2007. By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the application filed by the appellant- accused u/s 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the order dated 1st September, 2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C No.3, Basti in Sessions Trial No.207/07 in State v. Ram Vijay Yadav etc. By the said order, the Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge against the appellant-accused for the offence u/s 302, 323, 504 and 506 IPC.
(3.)The factual matrix of the case is as under:
One Mahender Prasad Tiwari complainant lodged an FIR against the present appellant-Dinesh Tiwari, Sadhu Saran and Ram Vijay Yadav for the offence u/s 302, 323, 504 and 506 IPC in Police Station Mahuli, District Sant Kabir Nagar. It was registered as Crime No.84/2006. It was alleged that the appellant along with Sadhu Saran committed murder of Arvind Kumar Tiwari son of the complainant. Reasons for enmity and detail event of murder were mentioned in the FIR.
Police started the investigation but subsequently, on the order of the Government the investigation was transferred to CBCID. CBCID submitted charge sheet against Sadhu Saran Yadav co-accused for the offence u/s 302, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. It was mentioned in the charge sheet that investigation shall continue against rest of the accused persons. The CJM took cognizance of the offence vide order dated 8th May, 2006. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was registered as S.T. No. 149/2006 titled State v. Sadhu Saran Yadav. Thereafter, CBCID submitted the charge sheet against Ram Vijay Yadav for the offence u/s 302, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and as against the appellant for the offence u/s 323, 504 and 506 IPC. No charge sheet was submitted against the appellant for the offence u/s 302 IPC. The cognizance was taken by CJM on charge sheet no.5A of 2006 on 23rd January, 2007. Bail was granted to the appellant for the offence u/s 323, 504 and 506 IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the CJM after taking cognizance and the Sessions Court framed charge against the appellant for the offence u/s 302 IPC, apart from Section 323, 504 and 506 IPC.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.