Allowed

Raj Kumar and Others v. District Session Judge Sonebhadra and Others

Allahabad HC28 May 2018CRLP/3193/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that despite the Magistrate lacking jurisdiction to review its own summon order, the Sessions Judge is empowered to revise such orders. Consequently, the impugned order dismissing the criminal revision was quashed, and the Sessions Judge was directed to pass a fresh order afresh within sixty days.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 19.2.2007 was quashed; the Sessions Judge was directed to pass an order afresh within sixty days.

Raj Kumar and Others Vs District Session Judge… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3193 of 2007

¶3

Petitioner :- Raj Kumar And Others Respondent :- District Session Judge, Sonebhadra And Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- V. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.,G.Prajapati,Ganesh Prahapathi,R.J.Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶6

List has been revised. Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3 are not present to argue the case. Heard learned A.G.A., for the State.

¶7

This writ petition has been filed to quash the order dated 4.2.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Duddhi, Sonebhadra in complaint case no. 1066 of 2002 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Viddhamganj, District Sonebhadra and order dated 19.2.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Sonebhadra in criminal revision no. 8 of 2007 (Rajkumar Vs. State). By the order dated 4.2.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Duddhi, Sonebhadra petitioner Shitla Prasad, Rajkumar, Krishna Kumar and Bhupendra Kumar were summoned for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC. Against the order dated 4.2.2004 criminal revision no. 8 of 2007 (Rajkumar and others Vs. State of U.P.) has been preferred. By the order dated 19.2.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sonebhadra, the said revision was dismissed on the ground that there is no provision for review or recall for the summoning order passed by the Magistrate.

¶8

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd., and Ors Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., reported in AIR 2009 SC 1032 held that issuance of summon is not an interlocutory order and is revisable.

¶9

Although, Magistrate has no jurisdiction to recall or review its own order but Sessions Judge is empowered to pass order in revision against cognizance order.

¶10

The impugned order dated 19.2.2007 passed by Sessions

¶11

Judge, Sonebhadra in criminal revision no. 8 of 2007 (Rajkumar Vs. State) is not sustainable. Accordingly, the order dated 19.2.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Sonebhadra in criminal revision no. 8 of 2007 (Rajkumar Vs. State) is quashed.

¶12

Learned Sessions Judge, Sonebhadra is directed to pass order afresh on merit within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶13

In the result, this writ petition is allowed . Let a copy of this order be communicated to learned Sessions Judge, Sonebhadra for compliance.

¶14

Order Date :- 28.5.2018 Jaswant

Raj Kumar and Others v. District Session Judge Sonebhadra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar and Others v. District Session Judge Sonebhadra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manasvi Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sharad Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Om Vir Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mustaqim Alias Mustafa Vs State of U.P.

Guddu Vs State of U.P.

Pramod Kumar Azad Vs State of U.P.