# Kalamuddin Khan v. State of U.P. and another

- **Citation:** (2005) 3 ILRA 893
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-08-23
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No. 6058 of 2005
- **Bench:** K.N. Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kalamuddin-khan-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-40509
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 482Quashing
of
Criminal
Proceedinginformant and the prosecution witnessnot supporting the prosecution case-if
put to the trail same evidence would be
repeated after wasting the precious time
of
court-held
proceeding
liable
to
quashed.

Held: Para 6

In the present case, the informant and
the eye witness have not supported the
prosecution
case
nor
named
the
applicant as assailant. If he is put to the
trial
the
same
evidence
would
be
repeated and after wasting the precious
time of the trial court, the result would
be the acquittal.
Case law discussed:
1965 (2) ACC-955

## Text

3 All] Kalamuddin Khan V. State of U.P. and another
893
other than to allow the writ petition
safely.

9. Therefore, we declare that the
land in question is free from any
requisition or acquisition under the
Ceiling Act, as aforesaid, and the
petitioners are entitled to have lawful
possession of the land in question.

Thus,
the
writ
petition
stands
disposed of.

However, no order is passed as to
costs.
I agree.

(Justice Sanjay Misra)
Petition disposed of.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.08.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE K.N. SINHA, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 6058 of 2005

Kalamuddin Khan

...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Opposite parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri.P.C. Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite parties:
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 482Quashing
of
Criminal
Proceedinginformant and the prosecution witnessnot supporting the prosecution case-if
put to the trail same evidence would be
repeated after wasting the precious time
of
court-held
proceeding
liable
to
quashed.

Held: Para 6

In the present case, the informant and
the eye witness have not supported the
prosecution
case
nor
named
the
applicant as assailant. If he is put to the
trial
the
same
evidence
would
be
repeated and after wasting the precious
time of the trial court, the result would
be the acquittal.
Case law discussed:
1965 (2) ACC-955

(Delivered by Hon'ble K.N. Sinha, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant and learned A.G.A.

The brief facts, giving rise of the
present application, are that a F.I.R. was
lodged
by
one
Sripat
Rai
on
30.10.2001.On 30.10.2001,at about 6.30
pm., his son Uma Kant Rai was coming
along with Lal Chandra an when they
reached near village Bahadurpur,two
person appeared and fired shot on Uma
Kant Rai.The assailants were not know
hence non was named in the F.I.R. during
investigation, statement of witnesses were
recorded and name of applicant came
therein. According of the investigating
officers, the involvement of the applicant
was under section 120B Indian Penal
Code and offence under section 302
Indian Penal Code was made out against
non applicant Dudh Nath Yadav and
Kanhai Yadav.The charges sheet was
submitted. The case against Dudh Nath
Yadav and Bhola Singh was committed to
the session court. The session trial no.613
of 202 proceeded in the court of Sessions
Judge, Azamgarh. Sri.Pat Rai, who is said
to be the informant of the case, did not
support the prosecution case and was
declared hostile. The eye witness Lal
Chandra also did not support the case and
was declared
hostile.
According to
894 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
prosecution story, deceased was going
along with Lal Chandra. Only Lal
Chandra can be the eye vitness at the time
of occurrence. As there was no evidence,
the trail of co-accused ended in acquittal.
The case of the applicant was separated
by order dated 14.11.2002.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant
has submitted that there is no chance of
conviction of the applicant if the trail
proceeds, as the main accused who was
said to be accused under section 302
Indian Penal Code, has been acquitted.

3. I have perused the judgment
recorded
by
the
Sessions
Judge;
Azamgarh.Sri.Pat Rai (PW-1) was the
father of the deceased, who lodged the
report. He has not stated anything about
the accused or the applicant. The name of
the applicant has appeared for the
criminal conspiracy. The informant did
not say anything even in his own
statement. As stated above, Lal Chandra
was named in F.I.R. as eye witness and he
also did not support the case.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
has
submitted
that
in
the
given
circumstances, the principle of stare
decisis is applicable and conviction of
present applicant cannot be procured. The
judgment of his Court reported in
2005(51) ACC(955) Pradeep @ Bhondu
@ Bantoo vs. State of U.P. has been
relied upon in which reliance was placed
on Diwan Singh vs. State reported in 1965
(2) ACC 188. In the case of Diwan Singh
(supra), it has been held:

"If two persons are prosecuted
thought separately, under the same
charge for offences having been
committed in the same transaction
and on the basis of the same
evidence, and if one of them is
acquitted for whatever may be the
reason and the other is convicted,
then it will create an, anomalous
position in law and is likely to shake
the confidence of the people in the
administration of justice."

5. It is settled view that this Court in
exercise of power under section 432 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure may
quash the proceedings of the trial taking
into account the principle of stare decisis.
Whenever, there is no prospect of the case
ending in conviction, the valuable time of
the Court should not be wasted for
holding trial only for the purpose of
completing the procedure to pronounce
the conclusion on a future date. In such
matters,
it
is
always
advisable
to
terminate the proceedings at the stage of
discharge.

6. In the present case, the informant
and the eye witness have not supported
the prosecution case nor named the
applicant as assailant. If he is put to the
trial the same evidence would be repeated
and after wasting the precious time of the
trial court, the result would be the
acquittal.

7. Consequently, the application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The
proceedings of Case No. 1776 of 2003
State vs. Kalamuddin, arising out of case
crime
no.204/2001
under
section
302/120-B Indian Penal Code, police
station Gambhirpur, district Azamgarh is
hereby quashed. The applicant, if on
bond, need not surrender and the surety
bond/personal
bond
shall
stand
discharged.

Application Allowed.
---------
3 All] Kamal Krishna V. State of U.P. and others
895
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.08.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M.K. MITTAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 11861 of 2005

Kamal Krishna

...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Mayank Agrawal

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
AG.A.

Code
of
Criminal
Procedure-482-
Summoning Order by Magistrate after
enquiry u/s200 and 202 Cr.P.C. after
being satisfied about sufficient evidence
to proceed against the accused personno required to evaluate the evidenceinterference by session judge on the
basis of contradictions in statement on
difference in measurement of injuryheld- un warranted.

Held: Para 8

In view of this legal position it is clear
that after the inquiry as contemplated
under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. if the
Magistrate is satisfied that there is
sufficient evidence to proceed against
the accused, he may issue summon or
warrant as the case may be and at that
stage the court is not required to
evaluate the evidence as if it was finally
deciding the case.
Case law discussed:
1973 (10) ACC 181 SC
1964 (1) SCR 639
1976 (13) ACC-225 (SC)
2002 (44) ACC-168
2004(1) SCC-338

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. K. Mittal, J.)

1. The application has been filed by
the applicant under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
with the prayer to quash the order dated
8.7.2005 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge,
Court No.5, Saharanpur in Criminal
Revision No. 16 of 2005 and with a
further prayer to stay the operation of the
impugned order.

2. I have heard learned counsel for
the applicant, learned A.G.A and perused
the record.

Brief facts of the case are that Komal
Krishna, the applicant filed a complaint
against Tajendra, Ashwani and Surendra
Kumar under Sections 307, 504, 506 and
452 IPC alleging that he was married to
Seema Rani daughter of accused Surendra
Kumar. Ashwani is son of Surendra
Kumar and Tajendra is their friend. After
the marriage, the complainant came to
know that accused Tajendra had been
visiting his Sasural and had established
relations with Smt. Seema Rani. The
family members of Seema Rani also
wanted to marry her with Tajendra. But at
that time, Tajendra was not doing any
work and therefore she was married with
accused as he was having a good post in
the Railway department. The complainant
also came to know that even after the
marriage Tajendra used to visit his wife
during his absence. He objected but his
wife did not mend her ways and it became
bone of contention between them. When
the complainant complained about this act
of his wife to the accused, Ashwani and
Surendra Kumar, they reprimanded the
complainant.

3. After about one year of the
marriage, when the complainant came to