Dismissed

Indra Kali Alias Kalawati v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC18 Aug 2018CRLR/1645/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh, J. dismissed a criminal revision filed against an order of discharge. The High Court found no illegality or jurisdictional error in the trial court's finding that the FIR was based on hearsay and lacked eye-witnesses. The revision was held to lack merit and dismissed on the ground of non-seriousness.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; no quashing of discharge order. Judgment transmitted to lower court for compliance.

Indra Kali Alias Kalawati Vs State of U.P. and Others — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1645 of 1999

¶3

Revisionist :- Indra Kali Alias Kalawati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Revisionist :- B.G. Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,A.N. Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

None is present for the revisionist even in the revised list. Heard learned AGA and perused the record. The revision is of year 1999, no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping this revision pending.

¶6

This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against judgment and order dated 21.5.1999 passed by III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad in Case No. 970 of 1995 under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Daraganj, District Allahabad whereby opposite party Nos 2 and 3 were discharged from charges under section 323, 504, 506 IPC.

¶7

From perusal of record/FIR, it transpires that report was lodged by C.B. Singh, Advocate and from perusal of Parcha no.3 of case diary it was found that FIR was written by P.K. Singh(Pramod Kumar Singh, Advocate) and it was found that he had written FIR on the dictation of complainant and Trial Court found that there was doubt whether FIR was lodged by Pramod Kumar Singh or not. It was also found that FIR was lodged belatedly; date and time was also not mentioned in the FIR. In the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. there are major contradictions between statements of witnesses. FIR was lodged on the basis of hearsay evidence only, there was no eye-witness and on the above ground opposite party No. 2 Sher Bahadur Singh and opposite party No.3 Vinod Kumar Singh were discharged as no offences under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC were made out.

¶8

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.

¶9

Copy of this judgment alongwith original record of Court below be transmitted to the Court concerned for necessary compliance. Compliance report be submitted to this Court within three months which shall be kept on record.

¶10

Order Date :- 18.8.2018/P.P.

Indra Kali Alias Kalawati v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indra Kali Alias Kalawati v. State of U.P. and Others

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

Raheesh Vs State of U.P.

Waseem Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Alias Chhotu Vs State of U.P.

Imran Vs State of U.P.

Gajendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Gulshan Vs State of U.P.