# Uday Pratap Singh v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 717
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-02-27
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 9701 of 2022
- **Bench:** Shree Prakash Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/uday-pratap-singh-v-state-of-u-p-50009
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482-Identical
grievance raised in another Application u/s 482
Cr.P.C.-claim the C.D. & pen drive not providedas send to the laboratory for examination-if
found not tampered and if prosecution will rely
upon then question of providing a copy will
arise-though same prayer was made in the
other Application and was granted-no changed
circumstances.

Application dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 All. Uday Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
717
opposite party no.2 and the said property
shall put to auction in order to recover the
outstanding maintenance amount to be paid
to the applicant.

(iv) Since the court concerned has
only fixed the interim maintenance, the
court concerned is expected to gear up the
matter and decide the Case No.10095 of
2017 (Hasina Khtoon vs. Ahmad Ali) u/s
12 of Domestic Violence Act on priority
basis and while calculating the final figure
of
maintenance
amount,
the
court
concerned
shall
adjust
the
interim
maintenance amount given by the opposite
party no.2 and shall be paid to the
applicant.

16. The aforesaid directions must be
adhered strictly within the time specified
above and no laxity would be tolerated in
compliance of the above directions.

17. With the above observations, this
application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed off.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 717
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 9701 of 2022

Uday Pratap Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Vinay Misra, Sri Anurag Shukla, Sri
Birendra Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A., Sri Pankaj Kumar Singh
Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482-Identical
grievance raised in another Application u/s 482
Cr.P.C.-claim the C.D. & pen drive not providedas send to the laboratory for examination-if
found not tampered and if prosecution will rely
upon then question of providing a copy will
arise-though same prayer was made in the
other Application and was granted-no changed
circumstances.

Application dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. OPTO Circuit India Ltd. Vs Axis Bank & ors.,
(2021)6 SCC, 701

2. Anita Kushwaha Vs Pushap Sudan, (2016) 8
SCC 509

3. U.O.I. Vs Prafulla Kumar Samal & anr.,
1979(3) SCC4

4. Superintendent and Remembrance of Legal
Affairs, West Bengal Vs Mohan Singh & ors.,
(1975)3 Supreme Court Cases, 706

5. Kanchan Kumar Vs St. of Bihar, (2022)9 SCC
577

6. Willie (William)Slaney Vs The St. of M. P., AIR
1956 SC 116

7. P.Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep Vs St. of Kerala &
anr. ,Criminal Appeal (SC) No. 1794 of 2019

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shree Prakash
Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Anurag Shukla,Advocate
and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned
counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Kumar
Singh, learned counsel for the opposite
party no. 2 and Sri Anirudh Kumar Singh,
learned A.G.A.-I for the State.

2. By means of the instant application,
the applicant-petitioner has prayed that the
learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-
718 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
I,Sultanpur may be directed to proceed with
the trial of the Sessions Trial No. 573 of
2022 (State Vs. Vijay Pratap Singh &
Others), arising out of Case Crime No.
0257 of 2021, U/s 302,120-B I.P.C., Police
Station-Munshiganj, District-Amethi, while
following each and every mandatory and
obligatory steps of the procedure prescribed
in Code of Criminal Procedure for ensuring
the very fair and transparent justice.

3. The factual matrix of the case is
that an F.I.R. was lodged against the
present applicant and his brother namely
Vijay Pratap Singh at Police StationMunshiganj, District-Amethi on 18-102021 and thereafter, the investigation
conducted and Chargesheet was filed
before the learned Trial Court on 16-122021 under sections 302 & 120-B of I.P.C.
against the applicant-petitioner and the
other co-accused persons. After filing of
the Chargesheet, the concerned Magistrate
took cognizance of the offences on 22-042022 and committed the matter before the
learned Sessions Judge, Sultanpur.

4. The electronic evidences i.e.
compact device and Pen Drive was
allegedly not given to the present applicant
and the other co-accused persons, which
came into the knowledge of the applicant
after perusal of the case diary. In the
compact device and pen drive, the
statement of the deceased is said to be
copied from the mobile of the complainant,
which as per the applicant, is an important
document and that should have been given
to the applicant, but, once an application
was moved under section 207 of Cr.P.C.
before the learned court below on 14-072022 for providing the aforesaid, prior to
framing of the charges, the same was not
given to the applicant and thus, the
contention is that the trial court has violated
the mandate of the provisions of section
207 of Cr.PC. and the trial court prior to
framing of charges, did not apply its
judicial mind on discharge of the applicant,
which is a valuable right.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the
applicant contends that even after an
application moved before the court below
on 14-07-2022, under sections 207/228 of
Cr.P.C., the electronic devices i.e. the
Compact Disc. as well as the Pen Drive
was not provided to the applicant, though
from perusal of the case diary, it reveals
that the compact device and pen drive has
been submitted with the case diary by the
Investigating Officer.

6. Adding his arguments, he submits that
since the compact device and pen drive is a
part of the case diary and certainly, the
prosecution shall rely on the same during the
course of the trial and therefore, those are the
important documents from the side of the
prosecution, therefore, the copy of the same
should have been provided by the trial court
while following the proceedings under Section
207 of Cr.P.C. He further submits that vide
order dated 20-07-2022, the application of the
applicant dated 14-07-2022 has been rejected
and a finding has been recorded that the copy
of the Compact device and pen drive has
already been provided to the applicant and
thereafter, the matter was committed to the
Sessions Court. He submits that in fact this is a
perverse finding as uptil date the copy of the
pen drive and compact disc. has not been
given to the present applicant and there is no
proof that the copy of the aforesaid documents
was ever given to the applicant, thus, the order
dated 20-07-2022 is perverse and vitiates in
the eyes of law.

7. He further contended that apart
from the aforesaid, the applicant has also
4 All. Uday Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
719
assailed the order dated 20-07-2022 as well
as the further criminal proceedings of
Sessions Case No. 573 of 2022 on the
premise that the learned trial court prior to
framing of the charges did not apply its
judicial mind with respect to the mandate
of the provisions of section 227 of Cr.P.C.,
i.e discharge of the accused. He next added
that the discharge is the stage after which
the trial starts and thus, it is valuable right
of an accused and this provision also
discloses that for application of mind on the
discharge of an accused, the record of the
case
and
the
documents
submitted
therewith including the submissions of the
accused and the prosecution be considered
by the trial court and if it was found that it
is not a case for discharge of the accused,
the court will proceed for framing of
charges. He submits that in the present
matter, the charges were framed without
application of judicial mind over the
discharge of the accused,which is apparent
on the record itself.

8. In support of his contentions, he
has placed reliance on a Judgment reported
in (2021)6 SCC, 701, OPTO Circuit India
Limited Vs Axis Bank & Ors and has
referred paragraph no. 15 of the aforesaid
Judgment, which is quoted herein under :-

"15. This Court has time and
again emphasised that if a statute provides
for a thing to be done in a particular
manner, then it has to be done in that
manner alone and in no other manner.
Among others, in a matter relating to the
presentation of an Election Petition, as per
the procedure prescribed under the Patna
High Court Rules, this Court had an
occasion to consider the Rules to find out
as to what would be a valid presentation of
an Election Petition in the case of Chandra
Kishor Jha Vs. Mahavir Prasad and Ors.
(1999) 8 SCC 266 and in the course of
consideration observed as hereunder:

"It is a well settled salutary
principle that if a statute provides for a
thing to be done in a particular manner,
then it has to be done in that manner and in
no other manner".

Therefore,
if
the
salutary
principle is kept in perspective, in the
instant case, though the Authorised Officer
is vested with sufficient power; such power
is circumscribed by a procedure laid down
under the statute. As such the power is to
be exercised in that manner alone, failing
which it would fall foul of the requirement
of complying due process under law. We
have found fault with the Authorised
Officer and declared the action bad only in
so
far
as
not
following
the
legal
requirement before and after freezing the
account. This shall not be construed as an
opinion expressed on the merit of the
allegation or any other aspect relating to
the matter and the action initiated against
the appellant and its Directors which is a
matter to be taken note in appropriate
proceedings if at all any issue is raised by
the aggrieved party."

9. Referring the aforesaid, he submits
that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
abovesaid case held that if the statute
provides for a thing to be done in a
particular manner, then, it has to be done in
the manner prescribed and not otherwise.
He added that Section 227 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure envisages with respect
to discharge and the opening sentence of
the aforesaid provision says that 'upon
consideration of the record of the case and
documents and submissions' the court
comes to the conclusion that if there are no
sufficient grounds, it shall discharge the
720 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accused and 'shall record the reasons for
so doing'. He added that the intent of the
legislature is very clear that the trial court
has to apply its mind on discharge,
considering the records and submissions
and therefore, the trail court has to proceed
accordingly, otherwise, the same would be
in sheer violation of law propounded by the
Apex Court.

10. He has also placed reliance on the
Judgment reported in (2016) 8 SCC 509,
Anita Kushwaha Vs Pushap Sudan and
has referred paragraphs no. 29 & 31 of the
Judgment abovesaid. Paragraph nos. 29 &
31 are extracted hereinunder :-

"29. To sum up : Access to justice
is and has been recognised as a part and
parcel of right to life in India and in all
civilized societies around the globe. The
right is so basic and inalienable that no
system of governance can possibly ignore
its significance, leave alone afford to deny
the same to its citizens. The Magna Carta,
the Universal Declaration of Rights, the
International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, 1966, the ancient Roman
Jurisprudential maxim of 'Ubi Jus Ibi
Remedium',
the
development
of
fundamental principles of common law by
judicial pronouncements of the Courts over
centuries past have all contributed to the
acceptance of access to justice as a basic
and inalienable human right which all
civilized societies and systems recognise
and enforce.

31.
Given
the
fact
that
pronouncements mentioned above have
interpreted and understood the word "life"
appearing in Article 21of the Constitution
on a broad spectrum of rights considered
incidental and/or integral to the right to
life, there is no real reason why access to
justice should be considered to be falling
outside the class and category of the said
rights, which already stands recognised as
being a part and parcel of theArticle 21 of
the Constitution of India. If "life" implies
not only life in the physical sense but a
bundle of rights that makes life worth
living, there is no juristic or other basis for
holding that denial of "access to justice"
will not affect thequality of human life so as
to take access to justice out of the purview
of right to life guaranteed underArticle 21.
We have, therefore, no hesitation in
holding that access to justice is indeed a
facet
of
right
to
life
guaranteed
underArticle 21 of the Constitution. We
need only add that access to justice may as
well be the facet of the right guaranteed
under Article 21of the Constitution, which
guarantees equality before law and equal
protection of laws to not only citizens but
non-citizens also. We say so because
equality before law and equal protection of
laws is not limited in its application to the
realm of executive action that enforces the
law. It is as much available in relation to
proceedings before Courts and tribunal
and adjudicatory fora where law is applied
and justice administered. The Citizen's
inability to access courts or any other
adjudicatory
mechanism
provided
for
determination of rights and obligations is
bound to result in denial of the guarantee
contained in Article 14 both in relation to
equality before law as well as equal
protection of laws. Absence of any
adjudicatory mechanism or the inadequacy
of such mechanism, needless to say, is
bound to prevent those looking for
enforcement of their right to equality
before laws and equal protection of the
laws from seeking redress and thereby
negate the guarantee of equality before
laws or equalprotection of laws and reduce
it to a mere teasing illusion. Article 21 of
4 All. Uday Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
721
the Constitution apart, access to justice can
be said to be part of the guarantee
contained inArticle 14 as well."

11. Relying upon the abovesaid, he
submits that the right to be heard on
discharge is valuable right and if somehow
the same is ignored, that hits the right
guaranteed in Article 21 of the Constitution
of India.

12. Placing reliance on the case
reported in 1979(3) SCC 4, Union of India
Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another,
he has referred paragraph no. 8 of the
Judgment abovesaid, which is quoted
hereinunder :-

"8. The scope ofSection 227 of the
Code was considered by a recent decision
of this Court in the case of State of Bihar V.
Ramesh Singh (1) where Untwalia, J.
speaking for the Court observed as
follows:-

"Strong suspicion against the
accused, if the matter remains in the region
of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof
of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial.
But at the initial stage if there is a strong
suspicion which leads the Court to think
that there is ground for presuming that the
accused has committed an offence then it is
not open to the Court to say that there is no
sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused. The presumption of the guilt of
the accused which is to be drawn at the
initial stage is not in the sense of the law
governing the trial of criminal cases in
France where the accused is presumed to
be guilty unless the contrary is proved. But
it is only for the purpose of deciding prima
facie whether the Court should proceed
with the trial or not. If the evidence which
the Prosecutor pro poses to adduce to
prove the guilt of the accused even if fully
accepted before it is challenged in crossexamination or rebut ted by the defence
evidence; if any, cannot show that the
accused committed the offence then there
will be no sufficient ground for proceeding
with the trial".

This Court has thus held that
whereas strong suspicion may not take the
place of the proof at the trial stage, yet it
may be sufficient for the satisfaction of ths
Sessions Judge in order to frame a charge
against the accused. Even under the Code
of 1898 this Court has held that a
committing Magistrate had ample powers
to weigh the evidence for the limited
purpose of finding out whether or not a
case of commitment to the Sessions Judge
has been made out."

13. He elaborated that the Apex Court
has held that if proposed evidence do not
show the committal of any offence, then
there will be no sufficient ground to
proceed with trial.

14. Further referred the Judgment
reported in (1975)3 Supreme Court Cases,
706, Superintendent and Remembrance of
Legal Affairs, West Bengal Vs Mohan
Singh and Others and relied upon para no.
2.

15. Referring the aforesaid, he
submits that Hon'ble Apex Court has
settled
the
law
that
the
successive
applications under section 482 Cr.P.C. are
maintainable and thus, he submitted that
the instant application is also maintainable.

16. He next added and has placed
reliance on a Judgment reported in (2022)9
SCC 577, Kanchan Kumar Vs. State of
Bihar and has referred paragraph no. 12
onwards of the Judgment aforesaid and
722 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
added that the legal provisions and
precedence with respect to Section 227 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure has been
settled by the Apex Court.

17. He has further placed reliance on
the Judgment reported in AIR 1956 SC
116, Willie (William)Slaney Vs. The State
of Madhya Pradesh and has referred
paragraph no. 6 of the Judgment aforesaid,
which extracted hereinunder :-

"6. Now here, as in all procedural
laws, certain things are regarded as vital.
Disregard of a provision-of that nature is
fatal to the trial and at once invalidates the
conviction. Others are not vital and whatever
the irregularity they can be cured; and in that
event the conviction must stand unless the
Court is satisfied that there was prejudice.
Some of these matters are dealt with by the
Code and wherever that is the case full effect
must be given to its provisions. The question
here is, does the Code deal with the absence
of a charge and irregularities in it, and if so,
into which of the two categories does it place
them? But before looking into the Code, we
deem it desirable to refer to certain decisions
of the Privy Council because much of the
judicial thinking in this country has been
moulded by their observations. In our
opinion, the general effect of those decisions
can be summarised as follows."

18. Lastly, he has placed reliance on
the case of P.Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep Vs
State of Kerala & Another,Criminal
Appeal (SC) No. 1794 of 2019 has referred
paragraph nos. 32 & 34 of the Judgment
aforesaid, which are extracted hereinunder
:-

"32. It is crystal clear that all
documents including "electronic record"
produced for the inspection of the Court
alongwith the police report and which
prosecution proposes to use against the
accused must be furnished to the accused
as per the mandate of Section 207 of the
1973 Code. The concomitant is that the
contents of the memory card/pen drive must
be furnished to the accused, which can be
done in the form of cloned copy of the
memory card/pen drive. It is cardinal that a
person tried for such a serious offence
should be furnished with all the material
and evidence in advance, on which the
prosecution proposes to rely against him
during the trial. Any other view would not
only impinge upon the statutory mandate
contained in the 1973 Code, but also the
right of an accused to a fair trial enshrined
in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

34. Reverting to the preliminary
objection taken by the respondent for
dismissing the appeal at the threshold
because of the disclosure of identity of the
victim in the memo of the special leave
petition forming the subject matter of the
present appeal, we find that the explanation
offered by the appellant is plausible
inasmuch as the prosecution itself had done
so by naming the victim in the First
Information
Report/Crime
Case,
the
statement of the victim under Section 161,
as well as under Section 164 of the 1973
Code, and in the chargesheet/police report
filed before the Magistrate. Even the
objection
regarding
incorrect
factual
narration about the appellant having
himself viewed the contents of the memory
card/pen drive does not take the matter
anyfurther, once we recognize the right of
the accused to get the cloned copies of the
contents of the memory card/pendrive as
being mandated by Section 207 of the 1973
Code and more so, because of the right of
the accused to a fair trial enshrined in
Article 21 of the Constitution of India."
4 All. Uday Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
723

19. Placing reliance on the aforesaid
judgment, he added that it has been held by
the Apex court that the electronic records
also comes under the purview of the
documents and an accused must be
furnished such electronic documents as per
the mandate of Section 207 of the Criminal
Procedure Code. He added that identically
in the instant matter, the grievance of the
applicant is that he has not been furnished
the pen drive and compact device though
the same have been submitted with case
diary.

20. Concluding his arguments, he
added that from perusal of the order dated
20-07-2022, it emerges that there is not a
single whisper regarding any consideration
with respect to discharge of the applicant
and straightaway, the court has framed the
charges against the applicant under section
302 readwith 120-B of I.P.C., which itself
is decipherable that the learned trial court
has passed the order while violating the
mandate of the provisions of Section 227 of
Cr.P.C.

21. Adding his argument, he further
submitted that overtly the trial court has
ignored the procedure prescribed under
section 207 of Cr.P.C. as admittedly the
copy of the pen drive and compact disc. has
not been given to the applicant and thus,
the submission of counsel for the applicant
is that the order dated 20-07-2022 may be
set aside and the trial court may be directed
to comply with the provisions of Section
207/227 of Cr.P.C. while strictly following
the same.

22. Per contra, learned A.G.A.
appearing for the State has opposed the
contentions aforesaid and submits that there
is no perversity or unlawfulness in the
order passed by the trial court. He submits
that earlier an application under section 482
Cr.P.C. bearing no. 4903 of 2022 was filed
by the applicant, with the following reliefs
:-

"(i) quash the order dated 20-072022, passed by the court of learned
Additional
Sessions
Judge/F.T.C.-I,
Sultanpur in Sessions Trial No. 573 of
2022(State Vs. Vijay Pratap Singh &
Others) rejecting the Application moved by
the Petitioner under section 207/228
Cr.P.C. as is contained in Annexure No. -1
to this petition.

(ii) quash the order dated 20-072022, passed by the court of learned
Additional
Sessions
Judge/F.T.C.-I,
Sultanpur
in
Sessions
Trial
No.
573/2022(State Vs. Vijay Pratap Singh &
Others) whereby an order has been passed
for framing of the charges against the
petitioner and two other co-accused U/s
302/34, 120-B IPC, as is contained in
Annexure No.-2 to this petition;

(iii) quash the order dated
20.07.2022. passed by the court of learned
Additional
Sessions
Judge/F.T.C.-1,
Sultanpur
in
Sessions
Trial
No.
573/2022(State Vs. Vijay Pratap Singh &
Others) whereby the petitioner and two
other co-accused have been charged U/s302/34,120-B IPC.

(iv) direct the court of learned
Additional
Sessions
Judge/F.T.C.-I,
Sultanpur, to proceed in Sessions Trial No.
573/2022(State Vs. Vijay Pratap Singh &
Others) after following the due process of
law i.e. after providing the accused persons
requisite electronic evidences i.e. Compact
Device and Pen-Drive(relief upon as
evidence)
and
after
providing
full
opportunity of hearing to them;
724 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(v) direct the court of learned
Additional
Sessions
Judge/F.T.C.-
I,Sultanpur not to proceed in Sessions Trial
No. 573/2022(State vs. Vijay Pratap Singh
& Others) in furtherance of the orders
dated 20-07-2022;

(vi)??????..."

23. Referring the aforesaid, he
submits that the present applicant has
already challenged the order dated 20-072022 passed by the court of learned
Additional
Sessions
Judge/F.T.CI,Sultanpur in Sessions Trial No. 573 of
2022. The court after hearing on the
abovenoted application, passed an order on
26-07-2022,
therefore,
the
second
application under section 482 Cr.P.C. with
same relief is not maintainable.

24. The operative portion of the order
dated 26.07.2022 is extracted as under:-

"5. Considering the fact that
there is sufficient material on record, the
trial Court proceeded to frame charge. The
trial Court has also observed that all the
relevant documents, relied upon by the
prosecution, have been given to the
accused at the time of committal under
Section 207 CrPC.

6.
I
have
considered
the
submissions and perused the impugned
order passed by the learned trial Court. I
do not find that the learned trial Court has
committed any error of law or jurisdiction.
However, it is provided that if the
prosecution is relying on the CD and Pendrive, which have been sent for forensic
examination, the accused shall be supplied
the copies thereof along with the copy of
the FSL report to enable accused to put
their defence effectively.

7. Disposed of. "

25. He next submits that so far as the
grievance with respect to non supply of the
copy of the Compact Disc and Pen Drive is
concerned, that has already been dealt with
by this Court in earlier application and at
the same time, the court has also observed
that if the prosecution would rely upon the
C.D. and Pen Drive, which are said to be
not given to the present applicant at the
stage of proceedings under Section 207 of
Cr.P.C., the same shall be given, after
receiving from the Forensic Science
Laboratory, so that the accused could put
his defence effectively. Court further
directed that in such event the copy of the
F.S.L. report will be given to the applicant.
He
contends
that
in
fact
the
dispute/grievance of the applicant has
already been dealt with by a coordinate
Bench of this court, in application under
section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing no. 4903 of
2022 and the present applicant is again
challenging the order dated 20-07-2022 on
the
same
pretext,
thus,
the
instant
application is nothing, but reiteration of
reliefs which have earlier been sought,
therefore, this application is being used as a
tool of modification/correction in the order
dated 26-07-2022 and added that if the
present
applicant
is
in
fact
feeling
aggrieved with the order dated 26-07-2022,
he may assail the same at an appropriate
forum. Therefore, the present application is
liable to be dismissed.

26. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and after perusal of material
placed on record, it emerges that the
present applicant has already filed an
application under section 482 Cr.P.C.
bearing no. 4903 of 2022, wherein the
order dated 20-07-2022 was assailed and an
identical grievance was raised in the
4 All. Uday Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
725
aforesaid application before the coordinate
Bench of this court.

27. So far as the grievance of the
present applicant that the documents i.e.
C.D. & Pen Drive were not provided to
him, is concerned, the fact remains that
those documents have been sent to the
Forensic
Science
Laboratory
for
its
examination and if it is found that those are
not tampered, the question would arise that
whether the prosecution is relying upon the
same or not and in case, the same would be
relied upon by the prosecution and the copy
is not been provided, certainly, there would
be violation of law and therefore the instant
application has been filed at premature
stage.

28. This court has noticed the fact that
the coordinate Bench of this court while
passing the order on 26-07-2022, in
application under section 482 Cr.P.C.
bearing no. 4903 of 2022, provided that "if
the prosecution is relying on the CD and
Pen-drive, which have been sent for
forensic examination, the accused shall be
supplied the copies thereof along with the
copy of the FSL report to enable accused to
put their defence effectively." In this view
of the matter, the grievance of applicant has
already been exhausted, but, repeatedly
almost the same prayer has been made in
ambiguous manner, without mentioning the
date of the order, but, the intent and content
is the same, though it is trite law that
subsequent application under section 482 of
Cr.P.C. is maintainable, but, that is in the
case of changed circumstances. So far as
the present matter is concerned, the
applicant has failed to demonstrate that
what are the changed circumstances after
the earlier order dated 26-07-2022 passed
by the coordinate Bench of this court,

29. So far as the law propounded by
the
Apex
Court
in
the
case
of
P.Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep Vs State of
Kerala & Another, Criminal (SC) No. 1794
of 2019 is concerned, the same is very clear
in its conclusion as in para no. 44, it is
provided that 'if the prosecution is relying
on any electronic record(memory card/pen
drive etc.), the accused must be given
cloned copy. The wordings are very clear
that the electronic records which are
documents
of
evidenciary
value,
be
provided if the prosecution relies on the
same and thus, this verdict also supports
the version of the prosecution.

30. Further so far as the law cited by
the learned counsel for the applicant in case
of OPTO Circuit India Limited Vs Axis
Bank & Ors, reported in (2021) 6 SCC,701
is
concerned,
the
Apex
Court
has
categorically held and reiterated the settled
law that if the statute provides for a thing to
be done in a particular manner, then the
same has to be done in that manner and not
otherwise.

31. So far as bare reading of
provisions of Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. is
concerned, the intent of legislature is clear
from its last line as it contains that 'he will
discharge an accused and record his
reasons for so doing' and thus, it is clear
that the manner for discharging an accused
has been prescribed and therefore, the trial
court while discharging an accused, shall
record reasons in writing, thus, after
consideration of the records and after
hearing of the submissions, if the trial court
does not find sufficient grounds, it will
proceed for framing of charges. At the
stage of framing of charges, the court is not
required to hold the detailed enquiry and
only prima-facie, case is to be seen.
726 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

32. This court is also aware of the
settled law in case of Superintendent and
Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West
Bengal Vs. Mohan Singh and Others,
reported in (1975) 3 SCC 706, which says
that the second application under section
482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable but in the
changed circumstances, which varies case
to case and so far as the the present case is
concerned, the applicant has failed to
establish at this stage that there are changed
circumstances.

33. In the light of the aforesaid
submissions and discussions, this court is
of the considered opinion that there is no
merit in the instant application.
34. Resultantly, the application is hereby
dismissed.

35. Office shall communicate this
order to the court below.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 726
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 9973 of 2023

Narendra Pratap Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Surya Pratap Singh Parmar, Vadana
Singh Parmar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Preyansh Mishra

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code-
Section 307-compromise-Application for
compromise
rejected-Applicant
and
informant are cousins-section 307 IPCinjuries sustained-four firearm wounds of
entry and two of exit-conscience of society
involved-not an offence in domain of private
dispute.

Application rejected. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

Narinder Singh & ors. v. St. of Pun. & anr.,
(2014) 6 SCC 466

(Delivered by Hon'ble J. J. Munir, J.)

Mr. Preyansh Mishra, Advocate
has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of
opposite party no. 2 along with a short
counter affidavit, which are taken on
record.

2. Heard Mr. Surya Pratap Singh
Parmar, learned Counsel for the applicant
and Mr. Preyansh Mishra, learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2.

3. This is an application under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
19731
seeking
to
quash
the
entire
proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 218 of
1991, State v. Narendra Pratap Singh
(arising out of Case Crime No. 14 of 1991)
under Section 307 of the Indian Penal
Code, 18602, Police Station Sarai Inayat,
District Prayagraj, pending in the Court of
the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.
22, Allahabad.

4. It is submitted by the learned
Counsel for both parties that they have
compromised the matter, inasmuch as the
informant and the accused, that is to say,
the applicant and opposite party no. 2 are
cousins and now, the complainant does not
want to pursue the prosecution any further.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide
order dated 15.02.2023 has rejected the