the offence has committed by the Advocates, this Court considers it necessary to issue certain directions because the offence in this case was committed in a court room while Presiding Officer was sitting and that too by Advocates, who are also the part of the system. No one can be permitted to pollute the pious stream of justice delivery system. = “(i) It is prayed to include section 307 of IPC on the charge sheet submitted in Crime No. 419 of 2010, police station Wazirganj, Lucknow. (ii) It is prayed to impose other relevant sections of IPC or other Acts against accuseds in crime no. 419/2010, police station Wazirganj, LKO that Lordship deems fit, just and proper for assaulting in Judicial Custody even after Hon’ble High Court Security Instructions. (iii) It is prayed to frame proper charges against Jameeruddin Siddiqui (exADJ). (iv) It is prayed to take cognizance against the concerned Emergency Medical Officer of Adarsh Karavas on 24/06/2010. (v) It is prayed to regard para 8 of Counter Affidavit as a key to discover all the accused. (vi) It is prayed to grant reasonable time for the completion of Investigation as Lordship deems, just, fit and proper. (vii) It is prayed to pass any other order in favour of the petitioners.”

1

NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL  APPEAL NO.  648  OF  2018

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2082 of 2016)

OSAMA AZIZ AND ANR.      …..Appellant(s)

:Versus:

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.     ….Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

1. This appeal, by special leave, filed by the appellants inperson,

is   against   the   judgment   and   orders   dated   10th

January,   2013   and   19th  March,   2013   passed   by   the   High

Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, in Case

U/S 482/378/407 No.60 of 2013.  The first order dated 10th

January, 2013 is obviously an interlocutory order but also

2

rejecting reliefs (i) to (iv) claimed in the petition filed by the

appellants. The petition came to be finally disposed of by the

High Court vide judgment and order dated 19th March, 2013.

Accordingly,   both   these   orders   have   been   assailed   in   the

present appeal.  The copy of the petition filed before the High

Court   has   not   been   included   in   the   appeal   paper   book.

However, from the impugned order dated 10th January, 2013,

it is noticed that the first prayer in the petition filed before the

High Court was to direct the investigating agency to include

Section   307  of  Indian  Penal  Code  (“IPC”,  for  short)   in  the

charge­sheet filed against three persons before the Trial Court

in   Crime   No.419   of   2010,   P.S.   Wazirganj,   Lucknow.   The

second prayer is to include other relevant sections of IPC or

other Acts against the accused in the aforementioned crime.

The   third   prayer   is   to   frame   proper   charges   against

Jameeruddin   Siddiqui   (ex­ADJ).   Fourth   prayer   is   to   take

cognizance against the Emergency Medical Officer of Adarsh

Karavas on 24th June, 2010. The fifth prayer is to discover all

the accused on the basis of the clue given in paragraph 8 of

3

the Counter Affidavit. The sixth prayer is to grant reasonable

time for completion of investigation and seventh prayer is to

pass any other or further orders in favour of the appellants. In

the   impugned   order   dated   19th  March,   2013,   the   prayers

mentioned in the subject petition filed by the appellants before

the High Court have been reproduced as under:

“2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioners have

challenged the investigation pending in Case No. CB 447 of

2010, arising out of case crime no. 419 of 2010 (State Vs.

Airaz Siddiqui & Others), police station Wazirganj, Lucknow

investigated   by   the   C.B.   CID,   Luckonw   and   has   made

following prayer­ 

“(i) It is prayed to include section 307 of IPC on the charge

sheet submitted in Crime No. 419 of 2010, police station

Wazirganj, Lucknow. 

(ii) It is prayed to impose other relevant sections of IPC or

other Acts against accuseds in crime no. 419/2010, police

station Wazirganj, LKO that Lordship deems fit, just and

proper for assaulting in Judicial Custody even after Hon’ble

High Court Security Instructions. 

(iii)   It   is   prayed   to   frame   proper   charges   against

Jameeruddin Siddiqui (exADJ). 

(iv) It is prayed to take cognizance against the concerned

Emergency   Medical   Officer   of   Adarsh   Karavas   on

24/06/2010. 

(v) It is prayed to regard para 8 of Counter Affidavit as a key

to discover all the accused. 

(vi) It is prayed to grant reasonable time for the completion of

Investigation as Lordship deems, just, fit and proper. 

(vii) It is prayed to pass any other order in favour of the

petitioners.”

2. As regards reliefs (i), (ii) and (iii), the same stood disposed

of in terms of the impugned order dated 10th January, 2013,

4

and rest of the reliefs were considered and answered by the

High Court vide impugned order dated 19th March, 2013.

3. In   substance,   the reliefs claimed in the   petition filed

before the High Court were in reference to the criminal case

registered   against   private   respondents   and   other   accused,

being Crime No.419 of 2010.  In the order dated 10th January,

2013, the High Court noted that the charge­sheet was already

filed in respect of the said crime before the competent Court

against three accused for offences punishable under Sections

147, 323, 504 and 353 of IPC and the Court was informed by

the   AGA  that  investigation   against   other  accused  was  still

going on. It is in that context the High Court observed at the

end of the impugned order dated 10th January, 2013 that so

far as reliefs (i), (ii) and (iii) are concerned, the appellants may

approach the Trial Court. This is one aspect to which our

attention   has   been   drawn   by   appellant   No.1,   who   has

appeared   in­person.     As   regards   this   grievance   of   the

appellants, we are in agreement with the High Court that the

appellants are free to pursue their legal remedies before the

5

Trial Court for inclusion of Section 307 of IPC in Crime No.419

of   2010.   Needless   to   observe   that   even   if   charge­sheet   in

respect of the said offence has been filed, it is open to the Trial

Court at the appropriate stage to frame the charge for offence

under Section 307 of IPC if the material on record justifies

framing of such a charge, including to amend the charges and

also to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of

offence. None of the observations made by the High Court in

the  impugned  orders  will  be  any  impediment  for  the  Trial

Court to do so. This must assuage the apprehension of the

appellants   that   even   if   there   is   evidence   to   indicate

commission of offence under Section 307, such a charge has

not been framed against the concerned accused. We leave that

question open to be considered by the Trial Court on its own

merits and in accordance with law. 

4. As regards relief (iv), the High Court, in its impugned

order   dated  10th  January,   2013,   has   noted   that   the   same

pertained to some other case unconnected with Crime No.419 of

2010,  arising   from   an   independent   act   of   commission  and

6

omission   in  the   discharge   of   duty   for   which   no   criminal

proceeding is pending in the Court. As a result, the High Court

declined to issue any direction in respect of prayer clause (iv).

As regards prayer clause (v), the High Court observed that the

same   will   be   considered   after   submission   of   the   progress

report   by   the   concerned   Investigating   Officer   in   respect   of

Crime No.419 of 2010.   Thus, the Court finally disposed of

reliefs (i) to (iv) with the observation that no further action is

needed in respect of the said reliefs.

5. The matter was then taken up by the High Court on 19th

March, 2013, for considering the remaining reliefs (v) to (vii).

The grievance made by the appellants before the High Court

has been considered in the following words:

“The petitioner has made only seven reliefs in his petition.

Since final order has already been passed with regard to the

abovementioned four reliefs, only relief no. 5 to 7 needs to be

considered. Admittedly police has filed charge sheet in this

case. So far as relief No. 5 is concerned, it relates to discover

the accused persons during investigation and if the police

has not submitted charge sheet against them, the petitioner

himself   can   adduce   evidence   before   the   trial   court.

Thereafter   the   accused   persons   may   be   summoned   in

exercise of the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Relief no. 6

has also become infructuous as by means of this prayer, the

petitioner   prayed   for   relief   to   complete   the   investigation

7

within   a   stipulated   period,   therefore,   it   has   rendered

infructuous by submission of the charge sheet.

4. It is submitted by the petitioner that the investigation is

per   se   incorrect   because   as   per   the   conclusions   of   the

investigation, there were so many persons, who committed

the  offence but  charge  sheet  has  been filed only against

three  accused  persons  under  Section  147  IPC  also.   It   is

further submitted that to constitute an offence under Section

147   IPC   at   least   five   persons   should   have   been   chargesheeted.

No other ground was pressed into service by the

petitioner in his argument.

5. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that in this case prayer has

been   made   to   interfere   in   the   investigation   and   to   issue

certain   directions   to   the   Investigating   Officer   and   these

prayers   have   rendered   infructuous   as   police   has   already

submitted charge sheet.

6. It transpires from the perusal of the record that in this

case F.I.R. was lodged at case crime no. 419 of 2010 at

police station Wazirganj, district Lucknow with the allegation

that   accused   Airaz   Ahmad   Siddiqui,   Advocate   with   the

intention to create his influence in the area had lodged a

false report under Section 147, 323, 336, 504 & 506 IPC,

police station Chowk, district Lucknow at case crime no. 24

of 2009 after taking the police under his pressure and in

collusion with police got a false charge sheet submitted in

court.   Feeling   aggrieved   by   the   said   charge   sheet,   the

petitioner moved a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before

this Court, which was dismissed with the direction to the

court  concerned  to dispose of the bail application of  the

petitioner in the light of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs.

State of U.P. reported in [2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)]. When the

petitioner   was   present   for   his   bail   before   the   court

concerned, then the accused persons, namely, Airaz Ahmad

Siddiqui, Iraj Ahamad Siddiqui, his father Jamaruddin (Ex.

ADJ),   Aamir   Nakvi,   Advocate,   Pradeep,   Advocate   Saraan

Kahn, Advocate, Sahil, Advocate and a friend of Iraj Ahmad

Zuber and Tarik along with other persons entered into the

court room and started beating him with kick and fists and

Danda while the petitioner was in judicial custody. At that

time, Presiding Officer was present in Court. He made an

effort   for   his   rescue.   His   mother   made   an   effort   for   the

rescue of the petitioner then Iraz Ahmad also caused her

injuries.   Thereafter   the   police   force   was   called   and   the

8

accused persons ran away from there and the petitioner was

sent for medical examination to District Jail, Lucknow. After

investigation,   police   submitted   charge   sheet   only   against

three accused persons and the petitioner was not satisfied

with the investigation. Result of the investigation was to the

effect that several persons took part in the incident but their

identity could not be ascertained, hence charge sheet was

filed against three accused persons.

Since   the   investigation   has   already   been   completed

and charge sheet has been filed, therefore, the submission of

the petitioner that the investigation is per se illegal because

charge sheet has been filed only against three persons under

Section 147 IPC, which could not have been filed against less

than five persons. But this Court is not satisfied with this

argument as the investigation has revealed that offence was

committed by several persons but the identity of other coaccused

persons could not be ascertained, therefore, there

was no illegality in submission of charge sheet under Section

147   IPC.   The   offence   was   committed   by   an   unlawful

assembly and identity of only three accused persons could

be ascertained, who were members of unlawful assembly,

therefore, submission of charge sheet including Section 147

IPC only against three accused persons cannot be said to be

illegal in any manner. But keeping in view the facts of the

case, the petitioner may raise his grievance before the court

concerned.

But keeping in view the manner in which, the offence

has  committed  by  the  Advocates,   this   Court   considers   it

necessary to issue certain directions because the offence in

this case was committed in a court room while Presiding

Officer was sitting and that too by Advocates, who are also

the part of the system. No one can be permitted to pollute

the pious stream of justice delivery system.

7.   Hence,   it   is   provided   that   if   the   petitioner   raise   his

grievance before the learned Magistrate concerned, the same

shall   be   considered   and   decided   by   the   court   below   in

accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. This Court

is also conscious about the security of the petitioner, hence,

this Court considers it necessary to issue certain direction to

ensure the safety of the petitioner. Therefore, it is hereby

directed that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow

shall   provide   sufficient   security   to   the   petitioner   for   his

appearance before the court below on each date fixed from

9

his residence to the court and thereafter from the court to

his residence so long as danger to his security persists. The

District   Judge   shall   also   supervise   that   the   petitioner   is

provided sufficient security to pursue the matter before the

court   and   shall   also   ensure   that   no   hindrance,   by   any

person, is created in his right to move the court for getting

justice.

8.   In   view   of   the   above,   though   the   petition   is   hereby

dismissed but direction as indicated above are issued in the

interest of justice.

9. Ordered accordingly.”

We   must   clarify   that   we   have   reproduced   the   aforequoted

portion from the impugned order dated 19th March, 2013 only

to highlight the relevant portion. We may not be understood to

have affirmed any observation therein or on the merits of the

controversy.

6. According to the appellants, the observation so made by

the High Court will come in their way in pursuing the criminal

case. We are not impressed by the said grievance inasmuch as

the High Court had itself made it clear that all aspects will

have to be considered by the Trial Court at the appropriate

stage.   The   High   Court   was   cognizant   of   the   fact   that   the

allegations against the persons involved in the commission of

crime were very serious. The High Court has then observed

that as charge­sheet has been filed only against three persons,

10

all   contentions   available   to   the   appellants   could   be   raised

before the Trial Court for being decided in accordance with

law.

7. We reiterate that the none of the observation made by the

High Court will come in the way of the appellants in pursuing

the criminal cases and for taking the same to its logical end, in

accordance with law.   The Trial Court shall consider every

aspect of the matter that will be brought to its notice by the

appellants, on its own merits, objectively.

8. Besides this, no other aspect is required to be considered

by this Court even though in the prayer clause of the special

leave   petition,   the   appellants   have   asked   for   reliefs   much

beyond the lis that was before the High Court in Petition No.60

of 2013.  Notably, in the prayer clause of the memo of special

leave   petition,   no   relief   has   been   claimed   to   assail   the

impugned judgment and orders of the High Court as such.

What has been prayed is as follows:

“It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

Court may graciously be pleased to:

11

A. Direct an Agency other than the State to discover the extent

of   assault   of   petitioners   in   Court   room   in   Case   Crime

No.419/2010 of P.S. Wazirganj, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.

B. Punish and penalize Respondent Nos.4 and 5 for polluting

the   judiciary   as   Additional   Government   Advocate   and

Central   Government   counsel   after   becoming   accused   of

unlawful assembly.

C. Judge the bails of Respondent Nos.5 and 6 in view of MB

6794 of 2011 and MB 5461 of 2011 as compared to the Bail

No.4320 of 2011 of Respondent No.4 from the High Court, in

Case Crime No.419/2010 of P.S. Wazirganj, Lucknow.

D. And pass such further order(s), as this Hon’ble Court may

deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the

case.”

We may overlook this aspect as the appellants are pursuing

this appeal in­person. 

9. Accordingly,   we   dispose   of   this   appeal   with   the

observations made hitherto. While parting with the case, we

may observe that if the trial of subject Crime No.419 of 2010

has still not commenced, all concerned must take necessary

steps in that behalf and ensure that the trial is concluded

expeditiously.

10. A copy of this order be brought to the notice of the Trial

Court   by   the   Public   Prosecutor   appearing   before   the   Trial

12

Court, within two weeks from the date of its receipt. It will also

be open to the appellants to produce a copy of this order

before the Trial Court, if so advised.

11. Ordered accordingly.

.………………………….CJI.

(Dipak Misra)

…………………………..….J.

(A.M. Khanwilkar)

…………………………..….J.

(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud)

New Delhi;

April  27, 2018.