In a criminal revision filed in 1992 but decided in 2018, the court held that the Sessions Judge lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence directly on a complaint. The order was quashed, and the revision was allowed.
The order dated 8.5.1992 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Jaunpur is set aside.
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. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1085 of 1992
Revisionist :- Ram Dawar Dwivedi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- P. P. Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.,Vinay
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
1. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 are not present to argue the instant revision. Heard learned A.G.A., for the State.
2. This criminal revision is of the year 1992.
3. This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 8.5.1992 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in Criminal Revision No. 6 of 1992 (Ram Pratap Tripathi Vs. State of U.P.), whereby revision was partly allowed and revisionist (Ram Dawar Dwivedi), coaccused Mahendra Kumar Dwivedi, Mahabir and his wife and Sri Narain were summoned for the offence punishable under Section 494/149 IPC on the basis of complaint filed by the complainant.
4. As per provision of Section 190 (1) (a) Cr.P.C., only Magistrate can take cognizance on the basis of complaint. The Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to take cognizance directly.
5. In view of above, the aforesaid order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaunpur is against the provision of law and as such, the same is not sustainable.
6. In the result, this criminal revision is allowed and the order dated 8.5.1992 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Jaunpur in Criminal Revision No. 6 of 1992 is set aside.
Order Date :- 17.5.2018 Jaswant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to take cognizance directly on the basis of a complaint without a Magistrate.
Whether the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Jaunpur in Criminal Revision No. 6 of 1992 is sustainable.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State of U.P.
Another
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
