Dismissed

Sharad and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Apr 2018CRLR/1698/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court in Criminal Revision dismissed two criminal revision petitions preferred against an order of a Judicial Magistrate rejecting the accused's application for discharge under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. The court held the order was not perverse based on available material.

What did the court decide?

The two criminal revisions were dismissed and any interim order was vacated.

Sharad and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1698 of 2016

¶3

Revisionist :- Sharad & Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastav,Jitendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ronak Chaturvedi

¶4

and

¶5

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1258 of 2016

¶6

Revisionist :- Pappu And Anr. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajiv Sisodia,Dhirendra Kumar Srivastav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ronak Chaturvedi

¶7

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶8

List has been revised. None is present from the revisionists side to press these criminal revisions. However, Sri Ronak Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned A.G.A. for the State is present.

¶9

These two criminal revisions have been preferred against order dated 6.4.2016 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagina, District Bijnor in complaint case no. 360 of 2015 (Geeta Devi Vs. Sharad and others), under Sections 392, 452, 354-A, 427, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Afjalgarh, District Bijnor whereby application of the revisionists/accused under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C., has been rejected.

¶10

Brief facts of the complaint case are that on 25.3.2015 at about at about 11:00 PM accused/revisionists Sharad, Manoj, Pappu and Veetu entered into residence of informant, abused her and looted articles of informant Geeta Devi. Revisionist/accused Sharad tried to outrage her modesty. Revisionists have caused mischief by damaging her household property. After inquiry, learned Magistrate summoned the accused/revisionists.

¶11

Revisionists/accused has filed application under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C., for discharge. After considering material on record, learned trial court held that charge against accused is not groundless.

¶12

Perused the impugned order.

¶13

Order has been passed on the basis of material available on record and as such, same is not perverse.

¶14

I am of the view that there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the learned Magistrate.

¶15

In view of above, these two criminal revisions stand dismissed . Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶16

Order Date :- 20.4.2018 Jaswant

Sharad and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharad and Another 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

Indrajeet Vs State of U.P.

Mandeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Krishna Kumar Agarwal Vs State of U.P.

Pardeshi Vs Kallu and Others

Ramesh Alias Babbu Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ravi Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another