This court dismissed a criminal revision preferring to challenge a summons order. The bench found no illegality or perversity in the lower court order based on corroborating witness and medical evidence.
Revision dismissed; stay order vacated.
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. - 16 of 2011
Revisionist :- Vinay Pratap Singh And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Kavita Singh Tomar,J.R.S.Tomar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 02.12.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate-I, Rama Bai Nagar in Complaint Case No. - 534 of 2010 (Suresh Kumar v. Thakur Gambhir Singh and others), whereby the accused Vinay Pratap Singh, Babbu Singh, Dinesh Singh (revisionists), Thakur Gambhir Singh and Mastan were summoned for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC').
As per complaint version, on 05.12.2009 in the evening, accused Thakur Gambhir Singh, Mastan, Vinay Pratap Singh, Jyotsna, Bablu Singh and Dinesh Singh assaulted complainant Suresh Kumar Chamar (opposite party no. 2) and his wife, due to which they sustained injury. After enquiry, learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order.
Ground taken in the revision is that the complainant had filed complaint with false allegation and grabbed money from the Government.
Learned counsel for private-opposite party and learned A.G.A. for the State contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by learned Magistrate. The complainant and his witnesses in their statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, respectively, have supported the prosecution version. The statements of the complainant and his witnesses are corroborated by medical evidence.
Perused the impugned order. I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by learned Magistrate, which is based on evidence and material on record.
Resultantly, the instant revision is dismissed.
Stay order dated 05.01.2011 stands vacated.
Order Date :- 24.5.2018 I. Batabyal
2 issues framed by the court
Whether any illegality or perversity exists in the impugned order summoning accused persons for offence under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC.
Whether the trial court erred in issuing summons based on evidence and material on record.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Vinay Pratap Singh
Babbu Singh
Dinesh Singh
Thakur Gambhir Singh
Mastan
State Of U.P.
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
