Dismissed

Anil and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 May 2018CRLR/1364/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the Single Judge dismissed the petition filed by accused persons against the trial court's order summoning them under Section 319 CrPC. The court held that the summons were based on evidence and were not perverse, rejecting the ground that there was insufficient evidence on record.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was dismissed, upholding the order summoning the accused.

Anil and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1364 of 2016

¶3

Revisionist :- Anil & 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Deepak Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sandhya Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

List has been revised. Learned counsel for the revisionists is not present to argue the revision. However, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. is present.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.

¶7

This revision has been preferred against the order dated 26.04.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Bulandshahar in Sessions Trial No. 381 of 2014 (State v. Bedi and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 3819 of 2013, whereby application of applicant-informant Nagesh Kumar (opposite party no. 2) under Section 319 of The Code of Criminal Procedure was allowed and the accused Anil, Sunil and Sumit (revisionists) were summoned for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 323, 324, 325, 504, 506 IPC.

¶8

As per prosecution version, on 14.01.2013 at about 03.30 P.M., accused Bedi, Sunil, Sumit, Anil and Amit assaulted Shimla, mother of informant Nagesh Kumar, and his brothers Sarvesh and Deepak, with the intention to kill them.

¶9

First information report of the occurrence was lodged on 16.01.2013, i.e. after two days of the occurrence at 03.30 P.M. The revisionists are named in the FIR. Injured witness P.W.2 Deepak, brother of informant Nagesh Kumar, has narrated the version of the prosecution in his statement before the court. Learned trial court had summoned the accused on the basis on evidence on record.

¶10

This revision has been filed on the ground that learned trial court has passed the impugned order without properly appreciating the evidence on record. There is no sufficient evidence on record to summon the revisionists.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order

¶12

passed by the court below.

¶13

The revisionists are named in the FIR. Injured witness P.W.2 Deepak has supported the involvement of the revisionists, in his statement before the court.

¶14

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the trial court is based on evidence and is not perverse.

¶15

Resultantly, the instant revision is dismissed .

¶16

Order Date :- 4.5.2018 I. Batabyal

Anil and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil and 2 Others 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mustafa Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil Dutt Vs State of U.P.

Lallu Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shakeel Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Suresh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arjun Gangwar Juvenile Vs State of U.P. and Another