Dismissed

Bhola Nath Tewari v. Radhey Shyam and Ors.

Allahabad HC17 May 2018CRLR/1029/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In criminal revision against a Sessions Judge's order allowing revision and quashing proceedings, the revising court found the lower court's quashing order lacked illegality. The trial court had correctly dismissed the case as Section 202 Cr.P.C. examination was missed and the complaint lacked statutory standing.

What did the court decide?

Attrition dismissed; Learned Magistrate directed to pass order afresh after calling complainant to produce and examine witnesses on oath within six months.

Bhola Nath Tewari Vs Radhey Shyam and Ors. — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1029 of 1992

¶3

Revisionist :- Bhola Nath Tewari Opposite Party :- Radhey Shyam & Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- Amar Saran Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.,Viresh Misra

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

List has been revised. None is present on behalf of the revisionist to argue the case.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for private-opposite parties and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.05.1992 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Mirzapur in Criminal Revision No. 106 of 1989 (Smt. Manorma Devi and others v. Bhola Nath Tewari), allowing the revision and setting aside the order dated 04.11.1989 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur in Case No. 2693 of 1988 (Bhola Nath v. Radhey Shyam) under Sections 302, 498A of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (in short 'D.P. Act').

¶9

Vide order dated 04.11.1989, accused-opposite parties - Radhey Shyam, Smt. Reshma, Kailash Nath, Smt. Rama Devi, Uma Nath, Manorma Devi and Shiv Kumar Yadav were summoned for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 302 of IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act on the basis of statement of complainant recorded under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') and his witnesses under Section 202 of Cr.P.C.

¶10

Perused the impugned order passed by the revisional court. The revisional court observed that as per provision of Section 202 of Cr.P.C., in offences triable exclusively by Sessions Court, the Magistrate shall call upon the complainant to produce all the witnesses and examine them on oath. The revisional court further observed that as per provision of Section 198A of Cr.P.C. and Section 7 of D.P. Act, cognizance cannot be taken for an offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and under D.P. Act, except upon the complaint made by the person aggrieved by the offence or her father, mother, brother, sister or by any recognized welfare institution.

¶11

In this case, all the witnesses of complainant have not been examined under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. and the complaint is not filed by the aggrieved person or his relatives.

¶12

In view of above, I find no illegality in the impugned order passed by the revisional court.

¶13

Resultantly, the instant revision is dismissed . Learned Magistrate is directed to pass order afresh, after calling upon the complainant to produce all the witnesses and examine them on oath, expeditiously, preferably within six months.

¶14

Let a copy of this order be certified to the court below for the purposes of intimation and necessary compliance.

¶15

Order Date :- 17.5.2018 I. Batabyal

Bhola Nath Tewari v. Radhey Shyam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhola Nath Tewari v. Radhey Shyam and Ors.

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

Shyamdev Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Manjesh Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

U.Mishra Vs State

Ram Dawar Dwivdi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vipin Kumar Minor Thru His Father Bhagwan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another