Allowed

Sudhakar Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC11 Apr 2018A227/2263/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that a non-reasoned order dismissing a complaint under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. in the absence of the petitioner is liable to be set aside. It directed a fresh order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 30.08.2017 and 01.04.2017 by Sessions Judge and CJM set aside; CJM directed to pass fresh order considering Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. statements.

Sudhakar Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. and 5… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2263 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Sudhakar Upadhyay Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ravi Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. in opposition.

¶6

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred to set aside the order dated 30.08.2017 passed by Sessions Judge, Badohi, Gyanpur in Criminal Revision No. 66 of 2017 (Sudhakar Upadhyay v. State of U.P.), by which the Sessions Judge, Bhadohi, Gyanpur has dismissed the revision filed against the order dated 01.04.2017 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi, Gyanpur.

¶7

Vide order dated 01.04.2017, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi, Gyanpur had dismissed the complaint of the complainant (petitioner) under Section 203 Cr.P.C.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that order dated 01.04.2017 has been passed without mentioning the contradiction in the statement of witnesses examined under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. in the absence of petitioner. This fact has not been considered by the revisional court.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. contended that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the courts below.

¶10

From the perusal of order dated 01.04.2017 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi, Gyanpur, it is revealed that the impugned order has been passed in the absence of the petitioner. Contradictions in the statement of the witnesses of fact examined have not been mentioned in the impugned order.

¶11

This is not a reasoned order and is liable to be set aside.

¶12

In view of above, the instant writ petition is allowed . Impugned orders dated 30.08.2017 and 01.04.2017 passed by Sessions Judge, Badohi, Gyanpur and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi, Gyanpur, respectively are set aside.

¶13

Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi, Gyanpur is directed to pass fresh order on the basis of statement of the witnesses under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. without being influenced by the orders of revisional court and this Court.

¶14

Let certified copies of this order be provided to the courts below for necessary compliance.

¶15

Order Date :- 11.4.2018 I. Batabyal

Sudhakar Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhakar Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogendra Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sujan Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hari Ram and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Gulafsa @ Chandani and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. and 4 Others

Ravi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another