In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, the Single Judge of Allahabad High Court, relying on evidence regarding the absence of 'patta' narration establishing the applicants' title, dismissed the prayer to set aside the orders of the trial and revisional courts rejecting the discharge application.
No order set aside; application dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 14
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3663 of 2018
Applicant :- Sakalraj And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Siddhartha Srivastava,Himanshu Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated 22.09.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Kushi Nagar, Padrauna in Criminal Revision No. 139 of 2016 (Sakalraj and another v. State of U.P. and Another) as well as the order dated 02.06.2016 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushi Nagar, Padrauna in Case No. 263 of 2011 (State v. Sakalraj and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 590 of 2008 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 209 IPC, Police Station - Kaptanganj, District - Kushi Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicants, relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in P. Vijayan v. State of Kerela and Another (2010) 2 SCC 398 , contended that no offence is made out against the applicants. He further contended that the courts below without paying any heed to the evidence available on record have erroneously rejected the application for discharge, which aspect can be taken into consideration by this Court, if possible.
Learned A.G.A. contended that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by trial court and revisional court.
From the perusal of impugned order dated 02.06.2016, it reveals that revenue inspector has specifically stated that there is no narration of the alleged 'patta' in favour of the applicants in the documents maintained by the tehsil.
In view of above, I am of the considered view that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders dated 22.09.2017 and 02.06.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Kushi Nagar, Padrauna and Civil Judge (S.D.)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushi Nagar, Padrauna, respectively.
Accordingly, the instant application is dismissed .
Order Date :- 7.2.2018 I. Batabyal
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there is any infirmity or illegality in the order dated 02.06.2016 passed by the trial court and the order dated 22.09.2017 passed by the revisional court in the instant application under Sect
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P. Vijayan v. State of Kerela and AnotherReferred¶7
P. Vijayan v. State of Kerela and Another (2010) 2 SCC 398 · Who else cites this
Sakalraj And Another
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
