The Allahabad High Court stated that one coordinate bench cannot comment on the decisions or judgments made by another coordinate bench of equal strength.
The Allahabad High Court emphasized that one coordinate Bench cannot critique the decisions or judgments made by another coordinate Bench of the same level. The Court was reviewing a request to overturn an order issued by the Additional District and Sessions Judge concerning Sections 498-A, 304-B, 328, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, related to the case of State vs. Shashikant Bajpai from Police Station Aashiana, District Lucknow. Justice Saurabh Lavania, in a single-bench ruling, stated, “It is a well-established principle that a coordinate Bench cannot comment on the discretion or judgment of another coordinate Bench of equal strength.” Consequently, the remarks made in the contested order against the previous Presiding Officer were removed, and the current Presiding Officer was warned about this matter.
The Applicant was represented by Advocate Prabhat Kumar, while the Respondent had a Government Advocate. The marriage between the applicant and the deceased took place on February 23, 2014, and the deceased passed away on April 13, 2018, at the applicant’s residence. The prosecution argued that the deceased died within seven years of marriage. Following a written complaint, an FIR was filed under the relevant sections of the IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The postmortem report indicated that the cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging, and a suicide note was also discovered during the investigation. At the charge framing stage, the defense requested the call details report for two mobile phones. The trial court, based on the evidence presented, issued the contested order.
Counsel for the Applicant argued that the presence of the Investigating Officer (I.O.) was essential for framing charges, and claimed the trial court made a legal mistake by rejecting the request to summon the I.O. based on the order from January 25, 2019. Conversely, the Assistant Government Advocate (AGA) opposed this application, stating that the trial court’s decision was correct since the law does not require the I.O. to be present during the charge framing stage.
The Court sided with the AGA, stating that the I.O.’s presence is not necessary at this stage. It noted that the I.O. was only needed to clarify issues in the investigation and to address the absence of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, as indicated in letters from the Presiding Officer dated March 3, 2020, and March 12, 2020. Therefore, the Court concluded that the trial court did not make a legal error by not summoning the I.O. and dismissed the application.
Cause Title: Shashi Kant Bajpai vs. State Of U.P. (2025:AHC-LKO:4671)
