Revision filed to quash an order rejecting an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., where alternative remedy was held available. The High Court found no illegality and dismissed the revision.
Revision dismissed holding no illegality in the impugned order as alternative remedy is available.
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. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3267 of 2003
Revisionist :- Smt. Arifa @ Arfa Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Sunil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
List has been revised. No one is present on behalf of revisionist to press this revision.
Heard learned A.G.A. for State.
This revision has been filed to quash the order dated 14.10.2003 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1 Bulandshahr Misc. Case No. 244/2003 (Smt. Arifa @ Arfa Vs. Atiq and others) whereby application of applicant/revisionist under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was rejected and an option was provided to applicant/revisionist to file a complaint.
From the perusal of order, it reveals that although the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been rejected but alternative remedy is available to revisionist to file complaint.
There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by trial court.
Accordingly, this revision is dismissed .
Order Date :- 17.3.2018 Sharad/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. suffers from any illegality or infirmity.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Arifa @ Arfa
State Of U.P.
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
