Gorakhpur riots: HC dismisses plea against sessions court relief to Yogi

The Allahabad high court on Thursday dismissed a petition against a revisional court (sessions judge) order which had granted relief to Yogi Adityanath in a 2007 riot case in Gorakhpur.

On January 28, 2017, the sessions court had quashed a chief judicial magistrate’s order, which had taken cognizance of a charge sheet against Adityanath, who was a BJP MP from Gorakhpur at the time of the riot, and remanded back the matter to CJM to decide afresh.

The high court too has now directed the Gorakhpur chief judicial magistrate to decide the matter of taking cognizance of the charge sheet afresh in accordance with law.

The petitioner, Rasheed Khan, had lodged an FIR at Gorakhpur kotwali police station against Yogi Adityanath and several others on January 27, 2007 on allegations of promoting enmity between two groups of people.

Dismissing the petition filed by Rasheed Khan and another person, justice BK Narayana of the high court observed:“This petition lacks merit and is

accordingly dismissed. However, by way of abundant caution, the CJM, Gorakhpur, is directed to decide the matter afresh pursuant to the impugned order of remand strictly in accordance with law and in the exercise of his unfettered independent discretion, without being influenced by observations, if any, made by the revisional court in the impugned order.”

On June 14, 2007, a charge sheet was filed against Yogi Adityanath and seven others in the case under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 153A.

On December 22, 2009, the Gorakhpur CJM took cognizance of the charge sheet against Adityanath and others. This

decision of the CJM was challenged by one of the co-accused who filed a criminal revision petition before the Gorakhpur sessions judge on the ground that the sanction granted by state government to prosecute the accused was not signed by the authorised officer. Hence, the CJM’s taking cognizance of the offence under Section 153A IPC was bad in law and without jurisdiction, the criminal revision plea said.

On January 28, 2017, the sessions judge allowed the criminal revision plea, and the matter was remitted to the CJM, Gorakhpur with a direction to him to pass a fresh order in accordance with law on the issue of taking cognizance of the charge sheet.

The petitioner challenged this order of the sessions judge in the high court on the ground that petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing by the revisional court before remitting the matter to the CJM.

The high court, however, rejected this argument and said the complainant was not a necessary party in a revision. He was entitled to be heard only if he approached the court and file an application to implead him as a party to the revision petition, which the petitioner never did, the high court said.

Section 153A of the IPC provides punishment for promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race and place of birth. Previous sanction of the state government is required for prosecuting the accused under Section 153A of IPC and charge sheet against the accused under the aforesaid section shall be filed after receiving the requisite sanction.

THE HC HAS DIRECTED THE GORAKHPUR CJM TO DECIDE THE MATTER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE CHARGE SHEET AFRESH