Coordinate Bench Can't Comment Upon Discretion Exercised Or Judgment Rendered By Another Coordinate Bench Of Same Strength: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court was considering an application seeking setting-aside of an order passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 328, 504 & 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Aashiana, District Lucknow (State vs. Shashikant Bajpai) and compliance of other orders.
The Allahabad High Court reiterated that a coordinate Bench cannot comment upon the discretion exercise or judgment rendered by the another coordinate Bench of the same strength.
The Court was considering an application seeking setting-aside of an order passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 328, 504 & 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Aashiana, District Lucknow (State vs. Shashikant Bajpai) and compliance of other orders.
The single-bench of Justice Saurabh Lavania observed, "Before parting it would be apt to indicate that "It is well settled principle/proposition of law that a coordinate Bench cannot comment upon the discretion exercise or judgment rendered by the another coordinate Bench of the same strength" and in this view of the matter the observations made in the impugned order against earlier Presiding Officer are hereby expunged and the Presiding Officer who has passed the impugned order is cautioned in this regard."
The Applicant was represented by Advocate Prabhat Kumar while the Respondent was represented by Government Advocate.
Facts of the Case
The marriage of applicant and deceased was solemnized on 23 February, 2014 and the the deceased died on 13 April, 2018 in the premises of the applicant. Therefore, it was the case of the prosecution that the deceased expired within a period of seven years of marriage. On written complaint, an FIR was registered under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 328, 504 & 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, was lodged.
According to the postmortem report, the cause of death was Asphyxia due to antemortem hanging and during investigation, Investigating Officer found a suicide note as well. At the stage of framing charge, an application was preferred from the side of defence for summoning call details report related to two mobile. The trial court, based upon the material on record, passed the impugned order.
Counsel for the Applicant, inter-alia submitted that the presence of I.O. in view of earlier Presiding Officer was necessary for framing of charges and as such the trial court committed an error of law in rejecting the application, which was filed with a prayer to summon I.O. in terms of the order dated 25.01.2019.
On the other, the AGA opposed the instant application on ground that the impugned order is just and proper as the presence of I.O. at the stage of framing of charge is not required as per law.
Reasoning By Court
The Court agreed with the submission of the AGA that the presence of IO is not required at the stage of framing of charge.
"The Police Officer/ I.O. was called upon only to explain the latches in the investigation and also for the reason that FSL Report could not be filed before the trial court, which is apparent from the letter(s) dated 03.03.2020 and 12.03.2020 of the Presiding Officer. In this view of the matter, the trial court, vide order impugned, has not committed any error of law in not summoning the I.O.," the Court observed.
The Court accordingly dismissed the Application
Cause Title: Shashi Kant Bajpai vs. State Of U.P. (2025:AHC-LKO:4671)
Click here to read/ download Order
