Amar Saran - (1.) -Heard Sri A. B. L. Gaur, senior advocate, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gaurav Kakkar learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A., and perused the record.
(2.) THIS application under Section, 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet in Crl. Case No. 200 of 2004, under Sections 307/498A, I.P.C. 307/498A, I.P.C. and 3/4, D.P. Act and also the orders dated 8.10.2004 in S. T. No. 619 of 2004, State v. Pramod Chandra, orders dated 13.7.04 in S. T. No. 368 of 2004, State v. Atul Chandra and in S. T. No. 163 of 2004, State v. Rahul Chandra and in S. T. No. 165 of 2004, State v. Uma Chandra, passed by the C.J.M., Bulandshahr refusing to discharge the applicant Pramod Chandra or framing charges against the other accused applicants. This case was remanded by the Apex Court by an order dated 18.9.2006 in Crl. Appeal No. 975 of 2006, arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1052 of 2005, Jyoti Gupta and another v. State of U. P., after setting aside the earlier order dated 28.10.2004, passed by this Court, in the instant criminal misc. application. A direction was issued by the Apex Court that the Chief Justice may place the matter for early hearing and disposal before the Bench concerned. After an order was passed on 3.4.2008 for peremptory listing of this case in the next cause list, it has finally been heard and is being disposed of today.
(3.) THREE orders, all dated 13.7.2004, framing charges under Sections 498A, 307, read with 149, I.P.C. and 3/4, D.P. Act against the applicant, Uma Devi, the mother-in-law of the victim Jyoti Gupta, applicants Rahul Chandra and Atul Chandra, who are devars of Smt. Jyoti, and another order dated 8.10.2004 refusing to discharge applicant Dr. Pramod Chandra, father-in-law of Jyoti, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Bulandshahr, in S. T. No. 619 of 2004, were challenged by means of this application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. Earlier an ex parte order was passed by a single Judge without issuing notice to the complainant at the initial stage on 28.10.2004 after hearing the applicants' counsel and the learned A.G.A., which observed that after considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants that the nature of injuries do not make out a case under Section 307, I.P.C., and that conflicting versions of the incident had been given by the injured victim in her statements under Section 161, Cr. P.C., hence the orders dated 13.7.2004 and 8.10.2004 framing charges as above passed by the lower court were being set aside and the case was being remanded to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge to re-consider the matter and to pass fresh orders. This order of the High Court was challenged in the afore-mentioned Crl. Appeal No. 975 of 2006, in which the Supreme Court observed that the High Court, after noticing the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants in the High Court and without recording its own reasons, had set aside the order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr framing charges. It was observed that the High Court had not even noticed the observations made on behalf of the State and that the order of the Magistrate could only have been reversed after recording reasons for such reversal, hence considering the order of the High Court to be an order bereft of reasons, the matter was remanded back to the High Court for a fresh decision on merit.;