Dismissed

Smt. Manju Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2018CRLR/1152/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appealed against the dismissal of a revision seeking recall of a summoning order under Sections 403 and 406 IPC. The High Court held the original order lacked merit and no jurisdictional error was found, dismissing the revision in 1992 later renewed in 2018. None present for revisionist.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision dismissed; copy of order to be transmitted to Court concerned.

Smt. Manju Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1152 of 1992

¶3

Revisionist :- Smt. Manju Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- O.P. Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

None is present on behalf of revisionist even in the revised list. Heard learned AGA and perused the record.

¶6

This criminal revision has been preferred against order dated 7.5.1992 passed in Criminal Revision No. 99 of 1991 (Rajeev Misra & others vs. State of U.P. & another) whereby revision was allowed and summoning order dated 13.2.1991 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate VI, Kanpur Nagar was set aside.

¶7

In nutshell, one complaint case was filed by Smt. Manju Misra whereupon opposite party nos.2 to 4 namely Rajeev Misra(husband), Om Prakash Misra(father-in-law) and Smt. Bitan Devi(mother-in-law) were summoned vide order dated 13.2.1991 under Section 403, 406 IPC. Against that order, criminal revision No. 99 of 1991 was filed and that was decided vide order dated 7.5.1992 allowing revision and setting aside order dated 13.2.1991.

¶8

From perusal of record and impugned judgment and order, it transpires that on the basis of 'Stridhan', Manju Misra wife of Rajeev Misra filed complaint against husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law alleging that marriage articles worth Rs.1,50,000/- which were 'stridhan' of complainant and which were entrusted to opposite party Nos. 2 to 4, were not returned to the complainant and due to criminal breach of trust, complaint was filed. According to order sheet of lower court, three witnesses i.e. P.W.-1 Prem Narain, P.W.-2 Hari Shanker and P.W.-3 Rajendra Shukla were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C.

¶9

From perusal of impugned judgment, it transpires that when file was summoned and seen, the lower revisional Court found that there was no evidence of recording statement of P.W.-3 Rajendra Shukla on record and there was no endorsement made in order sheet dated 11.12.1990. It has also been alleged by the revisional Court that how statement of Rajendra Shukla came on record when there was no reference of recording statement which also did not bear signature of the Presiding Officer. Hence lower revisional Court found no sufficient evidence and

¶10

dismissed the revision filed by Rajeev Misra.

¶11

It is pertinent to mention here that it is personal dispute between wife and husband and lower revisional Court found that summoning order was passed without evidence on record.

¶12

This revision is of the year 1992. No fruitful purpose would be served in keeping this revision pending. This Court finds no illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment & order. The present revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.

¶13

Copy of this order be transmitted to the Court concerned immediately.

¶14

Order Date :- 2.8.2018 P.P.

Smt. Manju Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Manju Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saddam Vs State of U.P.

Vibhu Agrawal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hafeez Vs State of U.P.

Uttama Devi Vs State of U.P. and Others

Manoj Kumar Rajput Vs State of U.P. and Others

Vinod Yadav Vs State of U.P.