Allowed

Vikas Gupta v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC2 Apr 2018CRLR/2277/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge held that Section 406 IPC is not made out against the revisionist as the complaint statement does not show entrustment of ornaments to him. The charge-framing order was set aside and directed to be framed afresh based on the Section 244 Cr.P.C. statement.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order framing charge is set aside. Trial Court directed to frame charge afresh based on Section 244 Cr.P.C. statement.

Vikas Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2277 of 2014

¶3

Revisionist :- Vikas Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Nitin Kumar Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Mukesh Kumar Upadhyay

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

This revision has been filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated 7.7.2014 passed by judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Aligarh in Case No. 2867 of 2005 (Smt. Bhawna @ Bhagwati Vs. Vikas Gupta and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 88 of 2013 under Section 406 IPC, Police Station Banna Devi, District Aligarh.

¶7

Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that against the revisionist, offence under Section 406 IPC is not made out. He further contended that from perusal of the statement of the complainant under Section 244 Cr.P.C., no entrustment has been made to applicant, therefore, offence under Section 406 IPC, is not made out. Learned Trial Court has framed charges on wrong substances.

¶8

Learned counsel for the opposite party contended that from the perusal of the record, charge under Section 406 IPC is made out against the revisionist.

¶9

Perused the record.

¶10

In statement of Bhawna @ Bhagwati under Section 244 Cr.P.C., it has come that ornament (streedhan) has been entrusted to her Jethani (Keta) and Nanad (Depali). There is not a single word which shows that ornament was entrusted to the revisionist (Vikas Gupta).

¶11

In view of above, offence under Section 406 IPC is not made out against the revisionist. Learned Trial Court has framed charges on wrong substances without appreciating the evidence on record. The order dated 7.7.2014 passed by judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Aligarh in Case No. 2867 of 2005 (Smt. Bhawna @ Bhagwati Vs. Vikas Gupta and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 88 of 2013 framing charge for the offence

¶12

under Section 406 IPC against the revisionist is hereby set aside.

¶13

Learned Trial Court is directed to frame charge afresh on the basis of aforesaid statement recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C.

¶14

In view of above, this criminal revision stands allowed .

¶15

Order Date :- 2.4.2018 Jaswant

Vikas Gupta v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Gupta v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Ajay Rawat and Another Vs State of U.P.

Dhanush Lal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Udaiveer Singh Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Israwati @ Shakuntla Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chhote Lal Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Rabish Gour Minor Vs State of U.P. and Another