Osama Aziz vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

1. This appeal, by special leave, filed by the appellants in­ person,   is   against   the   judgment   and   orders   dated   10 th 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 10 th 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 10 th 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   19 th  March,   2013,   the   prayers mentioned in the subject petition filed by the appellants before the High Court have been reproduced as under:

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 19 th 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.

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:

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.

11. Ordered accordingly.

.………………………….CJI.

April  27, 2018.