# Amar Singh v. State of U.P. and another - **Citation:** (2006) 1 ILRA 75 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2006-01-30 - **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No. 690 of 2006 - **Bench:** Ravindra Singh - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amar-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-40800 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote 76 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006 Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 482Quashing of charge sheet in ST.No.511/06-u/s 307 I.P.C.-prima facie the offence against the applicant as well as the other co-accused made out-No illegality pointed out in the investigation-except the material collected by the investigation-No other material required to be consideredappreciation of evidence including probability and contraction can not be considered at this stage-application. Held: Para 5 After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and after perusing the material present on record and the charge dated 28.11.2005 framed by the trial court against the applicant, it appears that on the basis of allegations made against the applicant and other co-accused persons prima facie offence is made out and there is sufficient material to proceed further. There is no illegality in the investigation as well as in framing of the charge. At the stage of charge, the only material collected by the Investigating Officer is required to be considered, no other material is required to be considered and it is not a stage of appreciation of the evidence including the probability and contradictions etc. The Stage of appreciation of evidence shall come when the evidence is adduced at the stage of trial. At this stage it is to be considered whether on the basis of the allegation made against the accused prima facie offence is made out or material collected by the Investigating Officer is sufficient to proceed further. The apex court has decided this controversy in a case of State of Orrisa Vs. Devendra Nath Pathi reported in 2005(1) J.I.C. 289(SC). Case law discussed: 2005 (1) JIC-289 (SC) relied on ## Text 1 All] Amar Singh V. State of U.P. and another 75 institution which adversely effected their chance to seek admission in the year in question and even in future years. We are not convinced with the submission of counsel of Aligarh Muslim University that the writ petitioners have no locus to file the writ petition. 148. Now comes the question of relief. It has been submitted by counsel for the Aligarh Muslim University that no mid session admission can be directed by the Court and the learned single Judge by the impugned judgment has directed for holding a fresh examination against 50% muslim quota. Reliance has been placed on Medical Council of India's case (supra) which lays down that no mid session admission can be directed. Another judgment relied is 2005(2) S.C.C. 65; Mridul Dhar Vs. Union of India. Paragraph 31 of the judgment provides for time schedule of postgraduate and super speciality course. The last date for joining the alloted college and course of postgraduate course is 1st May. The results for 2005 admission were declared on 26th February, 2005, thereafter the students even under 50% quota were admitted and are pursuing the course. It is true that by an interim order the admissions were made subject to the final decision. We have also been told that for the year 2006 the examination for fresh admission course is going to be held in February, 2006. The judgment of learned single Judge directing for holding examination cannot be given effect to at such distance of time. No fresh admission can be taken at this stage. The muslim students whose admission has been quashed by the learned single Judge are also before us by filing two appeals, we have granted leave them to file appeal. They complained that they were neither party nor noticed before quashing their admissions. We are not expressing any opinion on the effect of their being not party or not being noticed because we have already held that Aligarh Muslim University is not a minority institution and the muslim quota of 50% was invalid. However, in facts of the present case and the fact that those students who have passed MBBS and admitted in the courses have run for substantially long period, we are inclined to modify the judgment of learned single Judge permitting those admissions to continue in special facts of the present case. 149. In view of the reasons as given by Hon'ble the Chief Justice and some reasons given in this order, I am in full agreement with the orders passed as at (i) to (x) in the order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice. 150. All the appeals are disposed of accordingly Parties shall bear their own costs. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.01.2006 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA SINGH, J. Criminal Misc. Application No. 690 of 2006 Amar Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and another ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Tej Pal Sri Sukhendu Pal Singh Counsel for the Respondents: A.G.A. 76 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006 Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 482Quashing of charge sheet in ST.No.511/06-u/s 307 I.P.C.-prima facie the offence against the applicant as well as the other co-accused made out-No illegality pointed out in the investigation-except the material collected by the investigation-No other material required to be consideredappreciation of evidence including probability and contraction can not be considered at this stage-application. Held: Para 5 After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and after perusing the material present on record and the charge dated 28.11.2005 framed by the trial court against the applicant, it appears that on the basis of allegations made against the applicant and other co-accused persons prima facie offence is made out and there is sufficient material to proceed further. There is no illegality in the investigation as well as in framing of the charge. At the stage of charge, the only material collected by the Investigating Officer is required to be considered, no other material is required to be considered and it is not a stage of appreciation of the evidence including the probability and contradictions etc. The Stage of appreciation of evidence shall come when the evidence is adduced at the stage of trial. At this stage it is to be considered whether on the basis of the allegation made against the accused prima facie offence is made out or material collected by the Investigating Officer is sufficient to proceed further. The apex court has decided this controversy in a case of State of Orrisa Vs. Devendra Nath Pathi reported in 2005(1) J.I.C. 289(SC). Case law discussed: 2005 (1) JIC-289 (SC) relied on (Delivered by Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.) 1. This application is filed by the applicant Amar Singh with a prayer that entire criminal proceedings of S.T. No. 511 of 2005 State Vs. Ram Kumar and others under sections 307,302,504 and 506 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court no. 3 Mathura and charge framed against the applicant on 28.11.2005 by the same court may be quashed. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the present case the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during the investigation is not sufficient to frame the charge under section 307 I.P.C. against the applicant. The date of birth of the applicant is 1.1.1956. He was posted in July, 1993 in the State Bank of India on the post of clerk cum cashier, presently he is posted as Senior Assistant in village Tarauli district Mathura. He is a nonviolent, peace loving and law abiding citizen and is not having any criminal antecedent. The allegations made against the applicant are hyperbolical, exaggerated and false. The first informant Dinesh is a harden criminal and history sheeter, the deceased Ramu was also a harden criminal and the witnesses Mukesh Misra is also a criminal and one of the eye witness Gopal has filed an affidavit mentioning therein that he has been falsely named as eye witness in the F.I.R. The participation of the applicant and the role of firing upon the complainant party from a distance of about 280 feet in the dark hours of night is absolutely false because it was not possible to identify a person from such a longdistance and from such a distance it was not possible to cause any injury. The 1 All] Amar Singh V. State of U.P. and another 77 alleged occurrence has taken place on 20.5.2004 at 7.15 p.m. in the back side of Hindustan Petroleum Building where no source of light was available and in the present case no identification parade was held. According to the prosecution Dinesh, the brother of the deceased Ranu alias Ram Prasad, lodged an F.I.R. on 20.5.2004 at about 9.15 p.m. at P.S. Kotwali Mathura stating therein that coaccused Jeetu, Ram Kumar and Prashant are goondas, on 20.5.2004 at about 7.15 p.m. the first informant Dinesh who is the elder brother of Ramu went for walking in the Army Garden, his brother Vishnu, Mukesh Mishra, Gopal had also come for walking purpose. The co-accused Ramu, Jeetu and Prashant hurled abuses on the deceased and gave challenge, thereafter they caused injuries by using knife blows on the person of the deceased. The alleged occurrence was witnessesed by the first informant and other persons in the Mercury light, when they were chased. the applicant fired by gun and due to that firing, the first informant and another could not proceed further. The deceased was taken in an injured condition by the first informant and his brother Vishnu to hospital where he died. 3. It is further contended that there was over writing in the panchayatname and the name of the accused were not mentioned therein. The prosecution story was not corroborated by the postmortem report and there was no explanation of abrasion. The learned trial court has illegally famed charge against the applicant under section 307 I.P.C. because no offence under section 307 I.P.C. is made out and there was no sufficient material to frame of the charge under section 307 I.P.C. and the entire proceedings against the applicants are abuse of the process and are liable to be quashed. 4. It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. by submitting that in the present case F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant and other co-accused persons. The first informant and another persons are eyewitness and there was sufficient source of light. In the present case the brother of the first informant has been murdered. Thereafter the applicant has fired upon the first informant and another person with an intention to kill them. Active role of firing is given to the applicant but luckily no one received any injury. The investigation was completed by the I.O. who came to the conclusion that the applicant and other co-accused persons have committed the offence under section 307 I.P.C. The charge sheet was submitted and on the basis of the charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer, learned magistrate took cognizance. The case was committed to the court of sessions and charge was framed against the applicant on 28.11.2005. There is no illegality in the charge-dated 28.11.2005 and on the basis of the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer a prima facie offence is made out against the applicant and other co-accused persons and there is no ground to quash the criminal proceedings and the charge dated 28.11.2005 framed against the applicant. 5. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and after perusing the material present on record and the charge dated 28.11.2005 framed by the trial court against the applicant, it appears that on the basis of 78 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006 allegations made against the applicant and other co-accused persons prima facie offence is made out and there is sufficient material to proceed further. There is no illegality in the investigation as well as in framing of the charge. At the stage of charge, the only material collected by the Investigating Officer is required to be considered, no other material is required to be considered and it is not a stage of appreciation of the evidence including the probability and contradictions etc. The Stage of appreciation of evidence shall come when the evidence is adduced at the stage of trial. At this stage it is to be considered whether on the basis of the allegation made against the accused prima facie offence is made out or material collected by the Investigating Officer is sufficient to proceed further. The apex court has decided this controversy in a case of State of Orrisa Vs. Devendra Nath Pathi reported in 2005(1) J.I.C. 289(SC). 6. In view of the above discussion, there is no illegality in the charge dated 28.11.2005 and there is no ground to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the applicant, the prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings of S.T. No. 511 of 2005 pending in the court of learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge Mathura and the charge dated 28.11.2005 framed by the learned Additional IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura, is refused. 7. Accordingly this application is dismissed. Application Rejected. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.01.2006 BEFORE THE HON'BLE D.P. SINGH, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.44541 of 2002 Anshuman Singh Bhadoria ...Petitioner Versus Director of Education, U.P. Allahabad and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ashok Khare Sri Vinod Kr. Singh Sri S.K. Rai Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S.M.A. Kazmi S.C. Constitution of India, Art.-226-Service Law-compassionate appointmentpetitioner's father died in harness as clerk in Pt. S.L. Memorial P.G. College affiliate to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Universityclaim based on G.O. 21.11.95 applicable to Non-Government Degree Collegerejected on the ground his mother is already working as Asstt. Teacher in Girls Inter College-held-compassionate appointment can not be claimed as a matter of right financial situation of family recourse to this scheme can not be taken-rejection order upheld. Held: Para 4 Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right in all circumstances as it is hedged by the condition that there is financial distress due to untimely death of the bread winner and requires immediate relief. It cannot be said that irrespective of a comfortable financial situation the family can yet take recourse to this rule or scheme, as it cannot be held that it is a new source of recruitment.