Allowed

Neeru Chadda v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2018A482/19948/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed application to set aside Additional Sessions Judge's order allowing revision against two accused who were sought to be discharged, holding revisional court exceeded jurisdiction by appreciating evidence without stating basis.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 26.05.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge allowing revision against two accused is set aside.

Neeru Chadda Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19948 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Neeru Chadda Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Durga Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Swetashwa Agarwal

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Code') has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 26.05.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, Meerut, in Criminal Revision No. 155 of 2017 (Paras Dudeza and others v. State of U.P. and others), under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short 'Act, 1961'), Police Station - Mahila Thana, District - Meerut. By the impugned order dated 26.05.2017, revision in reference to revisionist-opposite party nos. 3 and 4 - Suresh Dudeza and Suman Dudeza was allowed. That revision was preferred against the order dated 25.02.2017 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, in Criminal Case No. 5380 of 2016 (State v. Paras Dudeza and others), under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Act, 1961, Police Station - Mahila Thana, District - Meerut, whereby the application of applicant-opposite party nos. 2 - 4 - Paras Dudeza, Suresh Dudeza and Suman Dudeza for discharge was rejected and date was fixed for framing of charge.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that in the first information report, specific role has been assigned to all the three accused-opposite parties - Paras Dudeza, Suresh Dudeza and Suman Dudeza. On the basis of material available on the record, learned Magistrate had ordered to frame charge against them. Learned revisional court has wrongly appreciated the evidence available in the case diary and has failed to mention any illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court. It was not appropriate on the part of the revisional court to appreciate the material and facts available on the record.

¶8

Learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that on the basis of evidence available on record, learned revisional court has passed the impugned order. By invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, the order of revisional court cannot be challenged.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. contended that in the first information report, specific role has been assigned to Paras Dudeza, opposite party no. 2, Suresh Dudeza, opposite party no. 3 and Suman Dudeza, opposite party no. 4. Accordingly, order passed by learned Magistrate requires no interference.

¶10

From the perusal of impugned order dated 26.05.2017, it reveals that learned revisional court has appreciated the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation, although it has not mentioned the statement on the basis of which it came to the conclusion that no offence is made out against opposite party nos. 3 and 4 - Suresh Dudeza and Suman Dudeza. Learned revisional court also could not mention any illegality in the impugned order passed by learned Magistrate.

¶11

In view of above, I am of the considered opinion that learned revisional court has exercised jurisdiction beyond its limit. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the revisional court is liable to be set aside.

¶12

In the result, the instant application under Section 482 of the Code stands allowed. The impugned order dated 26.05.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, Meerut, in Criminal Revision No. 155 of 2017 (Paras Dudeza and others v. State of U.P. and others) is hereby set aside.

¶13

Order Date :- 12.12.2018 I. Batabyal

Neeru Chadda v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeru Chadda v. State of U.P. and 3 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

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

Kalicharan Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Pushpa Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Amresh Vs State of U.P. and Another